Openpandora Ltd (UK) Struck off email

[hedwards]

No surprises here, at least it's now official.

But still illegal as to be seen here:

http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/11679-information-for-old-customers/page-3

A single lawsuit may be able to hinder his plan of getting out of his obligations untouched,

but it would have to be filed more or less this instant.

Don't let him get away until you know exactly, where all the money went, that he still owes to ED and the customers!

Same with ICP2. This scurrying out should stop.

We're assuming that it's illegal. But, without the full details I doubt it's as simple as it appears. Craig presumably spent the last money that he had in that company for attorneys to set up this step. I'd be very surprised if this was illegal when all is said and done. It seems odd to me that he'd fail to wait the prescribed period of time unless there's some sort of loophole there. It's just way too obvious of a gotcha for him to miss.

Ultimately, whether the LLC declards bankruptcy or is just struck off, the effect is likely to be the same. So, it seems a bit strange to me that he'd break the law now after all these years without any evidence of criminal wrong doing.

Of course, I could be wrong about that, it might be as illegal as it appears and he might have come to the conclusion that he couldn't continue to hide all his criminal activities, but who knows, hopefully we'll finally get some answers about what was going on in his organization.

 

[_wb_]

No refunds. Well that is something i never would have expected. (And Craig is prolly running a different company already with our funds)


What an utter cunt.


This is the reason why open source will never win. Respect to the good guys. Ed, get out while you can and start a real company with closed software.


The Craigs are ruining it.

Umm, what exactly does OpenSource have something to do with Craig not being able to organize a proper hardware production?


The hardware IS closed source, by the way, and THAT was the issue, not the software

Exactly. Also, as far as I can tell, Craig never was a big fan of Free & Open Source software. He was reluctant to have firmware based on GNU/Linux. If Android had already existed, he would probably have pushed to use that instead, maybe even with some additional proprietary Pandora-specific extensions.

It's the software guys (people like notaz and skeezix) and the Pandora community that pushed the device to use FOSS, not Craig. And FOSS is the only reason why the community still thrives today. Devs like p'titSeb, Linux-SWAT, B-Zar, etc etc would probably not have been interested in contributing to the project if it was based on some proprietary, closed-source OS.

 

[Trezker]

Indeed. I wouldn't have bought one if it was android.

I never even use the minimenu, Pandora is a desktop device for me.

 

[Klumpen]

Indeed. I wouldn't have bought one if it was android.

I never even use the minimenu, Pandora is a desktop device for me.

Same here. I wanted the freedom of a proper desktop which I never had on my Caanoo.

 

[Stainy]

Hahah yeah. Rubbish

 

[Binky]

Hahah yeah. Rubbish

?

 

[commander-beef]

It's the software guys (people like notaz and skeezix) and the Pandora community that pushed the device to use FOSS, not Craig. And FOSS is the only reason why the community still thrives today. Devs like p'titSeb, Linux-SWAT, B-Zar, etc etc would probably not have been interested in contributing to the project if it was based on some proprietary, closed-source OS.

FOSS or not. If you try to say, they are here because of FOSS, i think you're wrong.

 

[elwing]

hum, POSS you mean?

 

[_wb_]

It's the software guys (people like notaz and skeezix) and the Pandora community that pushed the device to use FOSS, not Craig. And FOSS is the only reason why the community still thrives today. Devs like p'titSeb, Linux-SWAT, B-Zar, etc etc would probably not have been interested in contributing to the project if it was based on some proprietary, closed-source OS.

FOSS or not. If you try to say, they are here because of FOSS, i think you're wrong.

OK I will not speak for other people. I myself am here because I like FOSS. I don't know about the others, but to the extent that they create and port FOSS software, I suspect that they like FOSS and that they would not be here if it was not such a FOSS-friendly device.

 

[asimov-solensan]

Will Ed continue to send Pandoras to all the remaining preorders?

If yes (which I hope), I think that it's a good time to remember people about the donation fund for outstanding preorders.

I mean most of us got our Pandoras thanks to people who still don't have it. It's the easiest way to hep them.

I even feel guilty. I preordered maybe in 2009 and tired of waiting while they had problems with the nubs (do people remember about the problem with the glue), I asked for defective unit (with one nub) which could had went to someone who payed before me.

 

[ExquisiteCorpse]

Yeah I'm here for FOSS.


Seriously closed sourced can get fecked after all this NSA stuff

 

[diligentcircle]

However, this does point out one of the problems for opensource and that is un- or mis-informed folks speaking with authority on a topic they obviously know little about. They are likely viewed as an expert among their network of even less-informed comrades. I have a theory that they are all spice-deficient. I think I will email them a Slim Jim. A few more donations and I get a sticker.

I don't think that's true as a general rule in free/libre/open-source software communities any more than in communities of proprietary software users. First of all, most FOSS projects are led by a Benevolent Dictator or at least an oligarchy, not a democracy; those that try to be a democracy inevitably fail (see SuperTux, Naev, and others). This is no different from how proprietary software is developed, except for a few minor details. But more importantly, you can't generalize the people involved in such a way at all. Users and developers of free software are not in general any different from users and developers of proprietary software.


Frankly, I don't think this community has any particular connection to FOSS to speak of, anyway. FOSS is used opportunistically, not out of any sort of principle or desire for it, kind of like what Valve is doing with SteamOS. I took a look at repo.openpandora.org; of the top 100 downloaded programs there, almost half (44, to be exact) are either proprietary or only useful for running other proprietary software, usually via emulation (and some, such as the various MAME ports and the DS emulator, are both). More than a quarter (26) are themselves proprietary. This doesn't mean that almost half of all software available for the Pandora is proprietary or only useful for running other proprietary software; I'm sure that if you went through every single program on repo.openpandora.org, the amount of software in this category would be a fairly tiny minority. But this shows that there is no particular dedication to FOSS among the Pandora's users in general.

 

[ramboky]

Yeah I'm here for FOSS.


Seriously closed sourced can get fecked after all this NSA stuff

The NSA contributed to several open standards which were implemented in many open source and closed source projects. The openness of the code is not the issue.

However, this does point out one of the problems for opensource and that is un- or mis-informed folks speaking with authority on a topic they obviously know little about. They are likely viewed as an expert among their network of even less-informed comrades. I have a theory that they are all spice-deficient. I think I will email them a Slim Jim. A few more donations and I get a sticker.

I don't think that's true as a general rule in free/libre/open-source software communities any more than in communities of proprietary software users. First of all, most FOSS projects are led by a Benevolent Dictator or at least an oligarchy, not a democracy; those that try to be a democracy inevitably fail (see SuperTux, Naev, and others). This is no different from how proprietary software is developed, except for a few minor details. But more importantly, you can't generalize the people involved in such a way at all. Users and developers of free software are not in general any different from users and developers of proprietary software.

I like this ^^


I write both open and closed source software for commercial and personal purposes and I agree, the differences between the two groups are more organizational than philosophical. Unless you're entering the realm of the Free Software zealots who, quite frankly, live in a fantasy world. In my opinion both open and closed source software have an essential part to play and complement each other well. 

 

[diligentcircle]

However, this does point out one of the problems for opensource and that is un- or mis-informed folks speaking with authority on a topic they obviously know little about. They are likely viewed as an expert among their network of even less-informed comrades. I have a theory that they are all spice-deficient. I think I will email them a Slim Jim. A few more donations and I get a sticker.

I don't think that's true as a general rule in free/libre/open-source software communities any more than in communities of proprietary software users. First of all, most FOSS projects are led by a Benevolent Dictator or at least an oligarchy, not a democracy; those that try to be a democracy inevitably fail (see SuperTux, Naev, and others). This is no different from how proprietary software is developed, except for a few minor details. But more importantly, you can't generalize the people involved in such a way at all. Users and developers of free software are not in general any different from users and developers of proprietary software.

I like this ^^


I write both open and closed source software for commercial and personal purposes and I agree, the differences between the two groups are more organizational than philosophical. Unless you're entering the realm of the Free Software zealots who, quite frankly, live in a fantasy world. In my opinion both open and closed source software have an essential part to play and complement each other well. 

Er... you know, I'm one of those free software "zealots", and you pretty much took exactly the opposite meaning I intended. I was saying that the actual organization and development of FLOSS and proprietary software is basically the same. (I didn't say anything about philosophical similarities/differences, but I'm not aware of any philosophy in proprietary software at all; the main philosophical difference is between open source and free software, not relevant when talking about FOSS vs. proprietary software.)

 

[sebt3]

I was saying that the actual organization and development of FLOSS and proprietary software is basically the same.

Luckyly not... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar (closed source are usually cathedral while more and more floss dev are following the bazaar way)

 

[WizardStan]

But even in the bazaar methodology there usually still exists a single entity which accepts or rejects patches, it's not some free-for-all or even democratic process of getting features in. You want your patch to be included you need to make your case to the power-what-is and convince them to accept it. That is the way most large scale open source and closed source projects are the same: a gatekeeper of the main trunk, maintaining scope and bug control.

Of course, FOSS has the benefit that if you really want a feature and it is rejected for whatever reason you can simply branch it and make your own release, but then YOU become the controlling entity for your fresh branch.

 

[diligentcircle]

WizardStan said what I was going to say better than I was going to. Also, this video on the topic is pretty good, though it has a lot of "um"s and "uh"s:

http://media.libreplanet.org/u/libby/m/mako/

(I'm particularly thinking of the part that starts at 23:25.)

 

[ramboky]

Er... you know, I'm one of those free software "zealots", and you pretty much took exactly the opposite meaning I intended. I was saying that the actual organization and development of FLOSS and proprietary software is basically the same. (I didn't say anything about philosophical similarities/differences, but I'm not aware of any philosophy in proprietary software at all; the main philosophical difference is between open source and free software, not relevant when talking about FOSS vs. proprietary software.)

Apologies for my poorly worded reply. I was agreeing with you that the people behind open source projects don't really differ from those behind closed source projects. And because of the widespread use of open source code/binaries in closed source projects, in many many cases they're the same people. We can agree to disagree on the organizational differences but they're hardly relevant here.  

 

Probably a question for another place but are you a true Free Software zealot (as I rather rudely put it), as in you believe all software should be open source and freely distributable? Or simply an advocate from Open Source software? 

 

[diligentcircle]

Probably a question for another place but are you a true Free Software zealot (as I rather rudely put it), as in you believe all software should be open source and freely distributable? Or simply an advocate from Open Source software? 

My position is that development of proprietary software is unethical, and the fact that people are using it is a social problem. I reject the Pandora for this reason (even if it weren't for the problem of the proprietary wireless firmware and 3-D driver, it's impossibly difficult to install only free software from repo.openpandora.org), and I use Trisquel on my laptop. So yes, I am one of those "zealots". Of course, I describe myself as a free software advocate, not a free software "zealot".

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

What an utter bastard craig is to not pay ed for the cases and lcd cables. It may be illegal to withold icp2 funds from craig, until ed got his due payment, but if an entirely unrelated reason that was legal was to be found...ahem!

If Craig fucks over us icp2 customers with refunds then I can't say it would be wrong for people to pursue him legally.