I "target" nobody in particular, but I just get in line with hns post :
https://pyra-handheld.com/boards/threads/power-memory-and-schematics.78631/page-4#post-1398892
if someone is not happy, nothing forbids him/her do build his/her own device.
Wow, And I thought I was bad at marketing.
Nothing forbids anyone to cancel preorders (specially if any feature is not as advertised or the shipping date is delayed) or not follow on with the rest of the payment
(specially if expectations, founded or not in true facts or compromises, are not met and people find themselves deceived even by third parties or their own assumptions and not the seller).
I thank again hns and EvilDragon and zmatt and so many others. They've put something between a very recognizable and gratefulworthy effort and devotion "beyond duty" and who knows if excessive dedication (if at all health threatening). Yet we must realize the point is not whether we are thankful or unthankful, or whether they are genius. It's we should work to understand each other and the best for the project, not try to play fans or divas. Artists (art in a general sense) have a tendency to believe their work is good enough so that they have a right to earn money from it. For better or worse the world does not work this way. In order to earn money somebody else has to give it to you, and in legal and honest businesses that means you have to convince them they'll get something for it more valuable than they put in, and more valuable than the other offers they could put their money in. And I thank all the preorderers than have put money in so that the project has been able to get this far (and will hopefully get further). And all who helped with comments, views, suggestions... because I believe they made the product better.
The point here is not legal possibilities, obligations and personal freedom to disengage and disperse. It is obvious that authors choose licenses and consumers choose works they consume. The point is if we can reach some consensus on what we all can flock together to achieve. It is a sort of collective negotiation, from very different standpoints since some people only reads and writes comments, other only put some money in, others offer valuable advice or code, others manage the funds and schedule, others create and test, etc.
Those are very different roles, but it would be easier to approach consensus if people could share why they need a thing or why it is too costly.Negotiation is usually about disclosing as much as you can on what you want and what you need, so that some common point between each party requirements can be found. The other side of the coin is bargaining is about keeping enough information confidential that the other parties don't know how much they can't really get from you. But hiding too much stalls any negotiation.
For example, hns not only said it is his prerrogative to choose license, it said some reasons he did so. I find the paywall argument a little weak,
since for that same reason no free culture would exist. The argument saying derivatives will always need more liberal terms than NC because
people will have to pay for one-off, prototypes or production, sounds more convincing to me, yet I'm no electronics engineer or business person.
The argument on OSHW being only for chip makers explains some percentage of reality but leaves counter examples.
I would welcome more debate in the style of "if this kind of work is published with this license this or that can happen and this is good or bad
for the project" (including of course authors). I think disclosing as much as early has already been useful and positive. From my ignorance it looks
as if a little while after publishing schematics someone looked at them and suggested to add fine or fast capacitors or something and that's still
the more likely fix to the frequency optimization, so fine. As I undesrstand (though IANAL) if the volunteer helping would not have been an
engineer on his own time but an engineer boss who wanted to assign a little paid time of one of her engineers to help the project (maybe as
training between projects or for whatever reason) he would have had to negotiate a different license first (consuming maybe the time between
projects and redenring the effort void) because By-SA-NC does not even allow unmodified redistribution for commercial purpose. As others say I find the
license less useful than could be, but the publication time earlier than expected, so that's good. And I still haven't heard this will be the last
design publication or the definitive license. I also understand that when you publish too soon you could even mislead people who start basing
work on a non-definitive version or whatever, so there's no hurry, I think (it also looks like schematics should be close to definitive, and people
getting prototypes soon may need it, so possibly appropiate).
For me this debate is useful and more than the choice of license, I'm frustrated that the authors simply dismissed debate for lack of time. I understand they have too much important
work to do and this takes time. I also think it would take more expert advice (lawyers, business experts on OSHW or circular economy or whatever,
I even don't know the specialities, but there are people studying this organizational aspects, see the Free Knowledge Institute, or OSHA, or Open Ecology, or others).
But I also think there's still time before the product ships to argue about how much openness can reinforce the product value proposition.
Come on, people argue about colors and keyboard layouts, but we can't argue about licenses? What drew interest in Tolosa ? The color ?
the key glyphs ? or the openness and versatility and tinkerability ?
Nobody is expecting to dictate the color, or the layout or the license, but that does not stop people from debating, and authors from listening,
learning and using the information as they see fit (possibly adding to the debate or calling in external experts who might be interested, because
I think some of us are chiming in with incomplete knowdlege).
I don't feel very motivated to try to contribute to this debate if the ones taking the final decisions are simply not going to listen or spend any time asking
relevant questions or even welcome it.
