[Gta04-owner] GTA04A3 System Manual
neil at ossau.homelinux.net
Wed Oct 12 19:39:34 CEST 2011
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:23:31 +0200, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Good question. The final CE measurements are scheduled for the next
> weeks and most likely are done on a A3 unit.
That's nice to know, thanks.
>> My other overall thought about the manual was concerning the "NC"
>> part of the license. I have a feeling the list might have discussed
>> this before - in which case apologies for not checking that first -
>> and I don't have much standing to ask you to contribute more to the
>> world than you already have; however you may like to consider:
>> 1. Would you have been able to do the work that you've done on
>> GTA04, if the license for Openmoko's documentation had had a
>> non-commercial restriction?
> Yes. The only task would have been to ask Sean for permission, before
> copying any material. We could have
> still *used* the material by reading it. Like you can buy a
> (copyrighted) text book about embedded systems
> and design your own. Anyways, we have not even copied anything from
> the GTA01/02 material
> (except that we redistribute the CAD files from our server)...
>> 2. Is the "NC" an important part of protection against competition
>> for you? Even by using all the docs, I really doubt if any other
>> organization could ramp up to your level of expertise quickly enough
>> to compete with your GTA04 business.
> Well, the license only covers the PDF *document* as it is. Not the
> hardware nor software nor
> concepts nor ideas. That is the area of patents and not copyright.
> Therefore it is simply not
> covered by such licenses. The Free&Open-Hardware community is heavily
> working on
> defining something similar to GPL for hardware - but it is not
> So in my interpretation, the NC clause only restricts that someone
> prints 1000 of these documents
> and asks for money. Or copies some pages verbatim into a book. But
> he/she can always ask for
> permission and we do not plan to use it restrictively.
> And it prohibits that this document is listed on some strange web
> sites where people ask money
> for a link to download a copy with their logo added as a watermark...
Thanks for those answers. I feel happy with your position now, because
I see that the domain is more restricted than I first thought, and also
I see your point about pay websites, and other uses that might just copy
without adding any value at all.
One tiny remaining concern, though: what happens if (heaven forbid)
Golden Delicious ceases to be, and so there is no one to ask for extra
>> 3. Just in case someone could ramp up and do something similar to
>> GTA04, could that in fact be better for both you (goldelico) and us
>> (the community)?
>> (I like Nina Paley's blog about this (general) question, at
> Inspiring points of view!
> But it does not give any arguments about the NC clause. For the ND
> clause I agree,
> that it limits freedom (of individuals i.e. users/owners).
Yes, sorry, she only mentions NC in passing, doesn't she? I remember
that I liked her point of view, but forgot to check in detail what she
> My general idea about "free" is "free as in free speech, not free
> beer". And it is about
> giving freedom to owners/users.
> Not freedom to the Fortune 1000. They
> (or their managers)
> already have more than any individual.
I'm not sure here though. I'm not sure I know who will be in Fortune
1000 in the future. Trying to draw distinctions on this kind of basis
does not feel like a reliable thing to do.
Also the Linux kernel has benefitted from contributions from IBM, I
> Thanks for pointing this out,
Thanks for your answers, again.
More information about the Gta04-owner