Kippykip
BFG 9000
Only problem, the Chinese don't follow licences lmao
Power, Memory and Schematics
- Thread starter EvilDragon
- Start date
Grench
Forum Addict!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,629
IMHO the entire license good/bad/other discussion should be stripped out and moved somewhere other than this news thread. It has derailed what should be a bunch of nerds shouting, "OMG!OMG! the Pyra Prototypes are going to get assembled and shipped soon!!!"
This thread started with so many things worthy of celebration and has become another extended diatribe by, "Open/Free Fundamentalists". Unwilling to celebrate how open the schematics are for the hobbyist community (see also: The rest of us.) , they insist on full and faithful adherence to a doctrine that was never (and should never be) agreed to by any entity developing 'stuff' with the intent on making money off of their ideas, labor and investment.
Can we get back to talking about how awesome the entire contents of this news post actually are?
Did the cases arrive? And where is the 'Prototype Family Photo'? <nudge>
This thread started with so many things worthy of celebration and has become another extended diatribe by, "Open/Free Fundamentalists". Unwilling to celebrate how open the schematics are for the hobbyist community (see also: The rest of us.) , they insist on full and faithful adherence to a doctrine that was never (and should never be) agreed to by any entity developing 'stuff' with the intent on making money off of their ideas, labor and investment.
Can we get back to talking about how awesome the entire contents of this news post actually are?
Did the cases arrive? And where is the 'Prototype Family Photo'? <nudge>
This whole discussion is a joke.
I would never give all the work I did and invested so much effort to the public.
Now the Pyra is more open than most other devices and all the work is given to everyone.
How can anyone complain about this?
That's just insane in my opinion.
I've followed the whole developement for years now first hand and have been disappointed by all the countless delays.
All the Developers, especially EvilDragon have put so much effort into that amazing project and now they open up everything they have done.
Simply shut up and take all the extras you get.
[doublepost=1480611012,1480610946][/doublepost]
Can we get back to talking when I'll finally get a Pyra
I would never give all the work I did and invested so much effort to the public.
Now the Pyra is more open than most other devices and all the work is given to everyone.
How can anyone complain about this?
That's just insane in my opinion.
I've followed the whole developement for years now first hand and have been disappointed by all the countless delays.
All the Developers, especially EvilDragon have put so much effort into that amazing project and now they open up everything they have done.
Simply shut up and take all the extras you get.
[doublepost=1480611012,1480610946][/doublepost]
Can we get back to talking when I'll finally get a Pyra
I agree, to open the precious work from years to the public requires balls, kudos to the developers for that. And therefore it is so frustrating to see an "almost!".
I would have not opened the design that way & now. The license protects primarly the document not the schematic therefore maybe not even preventing copycats, while disturbing the FOSS people. Hardware designs need patent protection not copyright protection. I would argue that is the worst of both world, an almost free license while probably not even preventing any copycats effectively. A better approach could have been to to open the CPU board interface design fully (and other interface's documentation), keep the rest of schematics fully proprietary while sending to the pre-orderers only, and announcing & writting in the documents that everything will be opened under free license YYYY in exactly XXX years (2-5). Trust for trust, while having safety now for the work and investment.
Well, it's not as "openess" was an announced feature (while a not clearly defined one). And as it was stated before: we discussed the smallest technical detail in the forums, why not the license and the opening procedure?
This is not an extra but an announced feature. How this feature would be established should have been discussed before. As it wasn't, it is understandable that now some discussion around that arises. While I can understand that this aspect is of minor or zero importance for some, for others (like me) it is of relevancy. And this is fine, everyone priorized something different and supported the Pyra for different reasons.
Last edited:
Thank you, EvilDragon, for taking time to answer, don't feel pressed to post often or give this more priority than it takes, at least I think there's still time for debating this.
I'm going to be a little picky and possibly commit errors trying to go into specifics, and I possibly have more free time right now than you, so I don't expect an immediate or long answer.
I'm not even sure if you might be saying something here than somehow could later be construed to be giving people more rights that you are allowed or willing to give, so careful.
I have no problem if you want to use some circumloquial language like "let's supppose Mr. A builds a device with upgradeable CPU and published schematics under CC By-SA-NC.... Mr. A allows..."
TLDR; I don't think I am allowed to do all what you claim in practice if the only license is by-nc-sa
I assume the license is
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
?
I call your attention to:
I interpret that if you give a document under CC by-NC-SA to someone who is paid to do some job that needs that document to do it you need additional permission from
all copyright holders of the work,because the reproduction and sharing carries commercial advantage to both parties (one gets money other the job done). Payment
does not need to be in money either and could be any compensation in species, services, or whatever. The judges even have room to interpret credit or reputation
as commercial advantage. Note that something that most people might not consider commercial at all like non-profit bittorrent distribution, needs an special clarification to
stay clear of commercial advantage. The mere fact that when you're sharing a work this "buys you" bandwith from peers might otherwise be construed as commercial advantage.
So they needed to clarify in the license. I don't know if this exception can be extended by analogy when looking for the intent of the license, but the license language
itself is not using any "for example", or "including" particle that might hint so. And this license looks to me
very carefully worded. It's not missing anythign they want, it's nothing there they don't need for what they want.
Well, I'd really welcome a lawyer here. My understanding (possibly worst than yours) is that I can't do a few things, some of those you maybe
intended to forbid and some others maybe not ? :
- sell the schematics or any derived work ("Adapted Materials")
- buy the schematics or any derived work ("Adapted Materials") (except from the original author, I can't buy any adapted material from adapters).
- take the schematics, some parts or derived works and give it to someone who I pay for building something for me, or auditing them, or even drawing
a comic stripe about them, as long as I'm paying that person or that person is paying me and that person is not the original author. I can't do that even
if I'm not planning to sell the result
- archiving, republishing them, posting them elsewhere in places I pay for or I get paid for using (like in a paid hosting provider, blog with adds, etc.).
I'm not sure of this one, I just fear.
- if I want to pay someone so that they build, say an CPU board with a different SOC and a RISC-v microcontroller for cool factor, I can't give them
(redistribute) the schematics so that they can make sure it'll be compatible. They can't take them from here because they have commercial purpose.
- If I want to sell a device second hand and pass the schematics to the new owner, I can't if they are licensed to me only under CC By-NC-SA.
Even if they build their designs without any adaptation or derivation from your schematics, distribution of the original to check compatibility is still
forbidden unless it is not for profit.
Anyone can do that with any published work, and no author can forbid this by copyright alone. The only way an author can prevent this is keeping
the design as an industrial secret or patenting (or utility models or similar). So since I already thanked you for many things, in this particular case, thank you for nothing.
"Die Gedanken sind frei" went the song (sorry for my terrible German)?
Only when all participants work for free and own or get permission to use all equipment for free.
Otherwise, whoever gets the schematics and is payed, needs additional license (except if he's the original author).
And I remember this disclaimer in a Talos crowdsupply page (note [0]), which gives me the impression that it is not really so easy to
produce open PCI hardware. Maybe you can but then if you need a logo or a Vendor ID ...
But this is too tangent. Your point was that you don't need to derive works from something to be compatible to that something.
That's right. But limiting commercial redistribution limits a lot what can be achieved in hardware, or at least that's the impression I get.
Also if I recreate something from what I learned from the licensed work, I possibly didn't violate copyright, but then
how to prove that's what I did instead of deriving your work from the licensed work, might not be easy enough to prove
that people may want to avoid it to prevent liabilities, or legal defence costs. Or maybe we mean different things by
"recreate"?
As long as nobody is paid to check compatibility with the published schematics...
With your own factory. You can't pay anyone that uses the schematics.
How did I access the schematics to create my own layouts and produce Pyras for commercial use
if I can't reproduce the schematics with commercial advantage ?
You must mean a colloquial use of fair use. There's a legal "fair use right" that no license can take away.
In your colloquial use, the problem is that non restricted use is ill defined, because that definition of NonCommercial can mean anything.
Of course that isn't worse than having no license at all. Of course anyone can contact and ask for additional permission, and i don't
even thing you are going to be unnecessarily forbidding and all. But if that's all then nobody needs a license, just ask in any case.
When rights need to be negotiated instead of already granted this creates friction and limits creativeness with thransaction costs.
It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal. Writing your own adhoc license is not a great idea either. You can make mistakes and
even if you don't people still has to read a new unknown license and that a smaller transaction cost,fidn it possibly uncompatible
with the other stuff they want to use, and stay uncertain on whether negotiate and reuse that work or just reinvent that wheel.
By-NC-ND or even by-nc-sa is used for example in music, because people is happy with just listening, and thus who want to make
derivatives if allowed can possibly do so on their own, so they can then share them gratis. But for anything that may require some
commercial services to exercise, By-NC-ND might not be appropriate.
This is a very good point.
I wasn't aware that development costs weren't included in the device price.
I wonder if you would be willing (and able) to offer additional licenses for money ?
I would be willing to pay more for a Pyra if its schematics and PCB layouts were CC-by-sa .
I would predict that we won't be enough people paying enough to gather 200000 EUR (+ whatever markup you want to put, you haven't
given a price just by hinting at costs). But hey, if I had known back in the day how they liberated Blender I wouldn't have predicted they
would succeed either, and I bet those nice Pyra renders benefitted from that success, so it's this kind of predictions I love to get wrong.
Also in the EOMA68 campaign the most demanded version was the RYF (but the price was the same there).
One factor to take into account is the price for a freer licensed version of the design. Another one might be the time. It kind of makes
sense for the price to get lower with time. And/or get lower with units sold if at some point profit from units sold cna go to recover development costs.
I hope a CC by-sa licensed design would satisfy everyone who has objected about by-nc-sa. I'm assuming the ones happy with by-nc-sa
will also be happy with by-sa, they might just not want to pay any extra for it, of course. That means those wanting by-sa might not want
to pay if others don't pay and get it anyway, but we should just concentrate in that we may not get it for free and can't expect those who
don't want it to pay for it.
I'm not completely sure of how to go about this, but after all this is a gaming community too, someone might devise a contest or scheme to
raise funds to pay for freer licenses. Food for thought...
I wouldn't go this way. What if hns comes and points to somethign he did which is absolutely closed and decides he wants to be as closed as that with the Pyra PCB layouts ?
That you have given works under free licenses once should never be used to push you to give more. There are arguments for making your works more useful and possibly profitable
with free licenses, but "you once did" is not a good one.
I think this is not the problem. If I understand what you mean by "license to the design" you don't need one, as EvilDragon tried to say.
The problem is that I'm afraid, like you, that for many practical reuses of the design you'll need some license for the schematics.
Reproduction, that is, verbatim copy of documents as in when you download something is covered by copyright, and the license only allows it noncommercial.
I'll link again to what has already been cited here of the OSHWA FAQ. I know no one promised to be OSHW, that's not why I link it, I just mean
to highlight the reasons noncommercial leads to problems[/QUOTE]
[doublepost=1480620839,1480619697][/doublepost]Sorry for editing my post 16 minutes after writing it. I tried to correct hard to understand parts. I changed pronouns when I realised that if you was interpreted as EvilDragon and EvilDragon was the copyright holder, some statements were false since the copyright holder does not need a license. So I wrote I instead. And I posted leaving some pronouns wrong, so I fixed it. Sorry for early readers.
[doublepost=1480621407][/doublepost]Sorry my part below was wrong.
What I meant is that, yes, you can produce an upgraded board even if the Pyra was completely closed, by reverse engineering.
EvilDragon is right in that. But once the schematics are there, using CC by-Sa-nc makes it likely that people think they can
do things they can't with the schematics.
Only when all participants work for free and own or get permission to use all equipment for free.
Otherwise, whoever gets the schematics and is payed, needs additional license (except if he's the original author).
I'm going to be a little picky and possibly commit errors trying to go into specifics, and I possibly have more free time right now than you, so I don't expect an immediate or long answer.
I'm not even sure if you might be saying something here than somehow could later be construed to be giving people more rights that you are allowed or willing to give, so careful.
I have no problem if you want to use some circumloquial language like "let's supppose Mr. A builds a device with upgradeable CPU and published schematics under CC By-SA-NC.... Mr. A allows..."
TLDR; I don't think I am allowed to do all what you claim in practice if the only license is by-nc-sa
I assume the license is
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
?
I call your attention to:
I interpret that if you give a document under CC by-NC-SA to someone who is paid to do some job that needs that document to do it you need additional permission from
all copyright holders of the work,because the reproduction and sharing carries commercial advantage to both parties (one gets money other the job done). Payment
does not need to be in money either and could be any compensation in species, services, or whatever. The judges even have room to interpret credit or reputation
as commercial advantage. Note that something that most people might not consider commercial at all like non-profit bittorrent distribution, needs an special clarification to
stay clear of commercial advantage. The mere fact that when you're sharing a work this "buys you" bandwith from peers might otherwise be construed as commercial advantage.
So they needed to clarify in the license. I don't know if this exception can be extended by analogy when looking for the intent of the license, but the license language
itself is not using any "for example", or "including" particle that might hint so. And this license looks to me
very carefully worded. It's not missing anythign they want, it's nothing there they don't need for what they want.
Well, I'd really welcome a lawyer here. My understanding (possibly worst than yours) is that I can't do a few things, some of those you maybe
intended to forbid and some others maybe not ? :
- sell the schematics or any derived work ("Adapted Materials")
- buy the schematics or any derived work ("Adapted Materials") (except from the original author, I can't buy any adapted material from adapters).
- take the schematics, some parts or derived works and give it to someone who I pay for building something for me, or auditing them, or even drawing
a comic stripe about them, as long as I'm paying that person or that person is paying me and that person is not the original author. I can't do that even
if I'm not planning to sell the result
- archiving, republishing them, posting them elsewhere in places I pay for or I get paid for using (like in a paid hosting provider, blog with adds, etc.).
I'm not sure of this one, I just fear.
- if I want to pay someone so that they build, say an CPU board with a different SOC and a RISC-v microcontroller for cool factor, I can't give them
(redistribute) the schematics so that they can make sure it'll be compatible. They can't take them from here because they have commercial purpose.
- If I want to sell a device second hand and pass the schematics to the new owner, I can't if they are licensed to me only under CC By-NC-SA.
Even if they build their designs without any adaptation or derivation from your schematics, distribution of the original to check compatibility is still
forbidden unless it is not for profit.
Anyone can do that with any published work, and no author can forbid this by copyright alone. The only way an author can prevent this is keeping
the design as an industrial secret or patenting (or utility models or similar). So since I already thanked you for many things, in this particular case, thank you for nothing.
"Die Gedanken sind frei" went the song (sorry for my terrible German)?
I agree I'm not allowed, I "just" don't agree with your "just". I think there are more things I'm not alowed to do.
Sure, but don't give any ideas to the sun king there at the EPO.
Only when all participants work for free and own or get permission to use all equipment for free.
Otherwise, whoever gets the schematics and is payed, needs additional license (except if he's the original author).
Not a great example, I'm here running away from PCs in fact...
And I remember this disclaimer in a Talos crowdsupply page (note [0]), which gives me the impression that it is not really so easy to
produce open PCI hardware. Maybe you can but then if you need a logo or a Vendor ID ...
But this is too tangent. Your point was that you don't need to derive works from something to be compatible to that something.
That's right. But limiting commercial redistribution limits a lot what can be achieved in hardware, or at least that's the impression I get.
I'm concerned I can't take the schematics and share them with anyone who is paid (by me or anyone) to work on them.
Also if I recreate something from what I learned from the licensed work, I possibly didn't violate copyright, but then
how to prove that's what I did instead of deriving your work from the licensed work, might not be easy enough to prove
that people may want to avoid it to prevent liabilities, or legal defence costs. Or maybe we mean different things by
"recreate"?
As long as nobody is paid to check compatibility with the published schematics...
With your own factory. You can't pay anyone that uses the schematics.
How did I access the schematics to create my own layouts and produce Pyras for commercial use
if I can't reproduce the schematics with commercial advantage ?
You must mean a colloquial use of fair use. There's a legal "fair use right" that no license can take away.
In your colloquial use, the problem is that non restricted use is ill defined, because that definition of NonCommercial can mean anything.
Of course that isn't worse than having no license at all. Of course anyone can contact and ask for additional permission, and i don't
even thing you are going to be unnecessarily forbidding and all. But if that's all then nobody needs a license, just ask in any case.
When rights need to be negotiated instead of already granted this creates friction and limits creativeness with thransaction costs.
It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal. Writing your own adhoc license is not a great idea either. You can make mistakes and
even if you don't people still has to read a new unknown license and that a smaller transaction cost,fidn it possibly uncompatible
with the other stuff they want to use, and stay uncertain on whether negotiate and reuse that work or just reinvent that wheel.
By-NC-ND or even by-nc-sa is used for example in music, because people is happy with just listening, and thus who want to make
derivatives if allowed can possibly do so on their own, so they can then share them gratis. But for anything that may require some
commercial services to exercise, By-NC-ND might not be appropriate.
This is a very good point.
I wasn't aware that development costs weren't included in the device price.
I wonder if you would be willing (and able) to offer additional licenses for money ?
I would be willing to pay more for a Pyra if its schematics and PCB layouts were CC-by-sa .
I would predict that we won't be enough people paying enough to gather 200000 EUR (+ whatever markup you want to put, you haven't
given a price just by hinting at costs). But hey, if I had known back in the day how they liberated Blender I wouldn't have predicted they
would succeed either, and I bet those nice Pyra renders benefitted from that success, so it's this kind of predictions I love to get wrong.
Also in the EOMA68 campaign the most demanded version was the RYF (but the price was the same there).
One factor to take into account is the price for a freer licensed version of the design. Another one might be the time. It kind of makes
sense for the price to get lower with time. And/or get lower with units sold if at some point profit from units sold cna go to recover development costs.
I hope a CC by-sa licensed design would satisfy everyone who has objected about by-nc-sa. I'm assuming the ones happy with by-nc-sa
will also be happy with by-sa, they might just not want to pay any extra for it, of course. That means those wanting by-sa might not want
to pay if others don't pay and get it anyway, but we should just concentrate in that we may not get it for free and can't expect those who
don't want it to pay for it.
I'm not completely sure of how to go about this, but after all this is a gaming community too, someone might devise a contest or scheme to
raise funds to pay for freer licenses. Food for thought...
I wouldn't go this way. What if hns comes and points to somethign he did which is absolutely closed and decides he wants to be as closed as that with the Pyra PCB layouts ?
That you have given works under free licenses once should never be used to push you to give more. There are arguments for making your works more useful and possibly profitable
with free licenses, but "you once did" is not a good one.
I think this is not the problem. If I understand what you mean by "license to the design" you don't need one, as EvilDragon tried to say.
The problem is that I'm afraid, like you, that for many practical reuses of the design you'll need some license for the schematics.
Reproduction, that is, verbatim copy of documents as in when you download something is covered by copyright, and the license only allows it noncommercial.
I'll link again to what has already been cited here of the OSHWA FAQ. I know no one promised to be OSHW, that's not why I link it, I just mean
to highlight the reasons noncommercial leads to problems[/QUOTE]
[doublepost=1480620839,1480619697][/doublepost]Sorry for editing my post 16 minutes after writing it. I tried to correct hard to understand parts. I changed pronouns when I realised that if you was interpreted as EvilDragon and EvilDragon was the copyright holder, some statements were false since the copyright holder does not need a license. So I wrote I instead. And I posted leaving some pronouns wrong, so I fixed it. Sorry for early readers.
[doublepost=1480621407][/doublepost]Sorry my part below was wrong.
What I meant is that, yes, you can produce an upgraded board even if the Pyra was completely closed, by reverse engineering.
EvilDragon is right in that. But once the schematics are there, using CC by-Sa-nc makes it likely that people think they can
do things they can't with the schematics.
Otherwise, whoever gets the schematics and is payed, needs additional license (except if he's the original author).
Letalis Sonus
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,530
CC are artists' licenses, they are all about the object at hand. They don't cover abstract content like ideas, structures, algorithms etc. - it does not matter what the object represents, it's the object that matters. You can't protect hardware created from those schematics in the same way that you can't protect the plot idea of a book or the drawing technique of a drawing. The schematics are more like a tutorial, you can make anything from what it teaches you. Legal conflicts will always focus on the licensed document, not the actual hardware created with it.
Grench
Forum Addict!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,629
Wow - if you're that determined to make a derivative product, just negotiate and pay for that license directly. All of the above drivel falls to the base assumption that the giant pile of money required for getting development to this stage was a gift or funded by a socialist government. ED is a small business owner who is making a product with community input and involvement. There has never been any doubt that ED's company controls the rights to the product of those inputs.
It is reasonable and -good- for DragonBox and HNS to release the data relevant to hobbyist modifications while retaining the rights to commercial development. This isn't a charity. They need to be able to make back their investment. Without that potential, this project simply would not exist.
They are also protecting -you- from getting scammed by people who would throw copies of these documents behind a paywall.
The statements above strike me as very selfish responses to a very unselfish document release.
It is reasonable and -good- for DragonBox and HNS to release the data relevant to hobbyist modifications while retaining the rights to commercial development. This isn't a charity. They need to be able to make back their investment. Without that potential, this project simply would not exist.
They are also protecting -you- from getting scammed by people who would throw copies of these documents behind a paywall.
The statements above strike me as very selfish responses to a very unselfish document release.
Correct.
Correct.
Not correct. If you pay for auditing or something else, then that's not commercial use.
The payment is being done for the service of auditing, not for anything else.
Otherwise you could also say it's commercial use if you buy a printer and paper to print the schematics. This is nonsense.
Commercial use is if someone makes profit by the direct use of the document which is not the case here.
Only if you have ads directly related to the documents. If your main website has some ads or similar, it's not a problem.
Wrong. The documents are NOT commercialized here.
They can LEARN from the documents (i.e. the pinout) and use that to produce new hardware.
That's not a derivate, that's learning.
Wrong. You aren't selling the schematics, you are selling the design. The schematics are free for download for anyone, even if they don't own the device.
That is something else: That's a patent on the bus (PCI).
You can produce open PCI hardware, but you need to pay license to use the patent.
The Pyra does not have any patents here, so you can do whatever you want.
No, you just THINKING the limits.
Paying for auditing of the schematics (changed or not) is no commercial use.
Selling the changed (and audited) schematics afterwards would be commercial use.
Maybe you should also think about what "derivate" means here:
Schematics are documents. These cannot be patented or similar.
ANYONE can read them, study them, learn them for free.
And then create their own schematics from what he/she learned from them.
It can be a different device, it can be the same device with small changes, it can even be the exact same device.
That's NO commercial use, as you cannot disallow to use what you learned to create schematics.
A "derivate" would be if someone takes the document and makes small changes to it.
That's a derivate and cannot be used for commercial purposes (otherwise it would be an easy workaround for anyone who wants to produce cheap clones).
Creating new schematics (similar or same) from scratch does not fall under the license anymore.
It's pretty easy to prove, as you only have the PDF files of the schematics.
If you start a hardware project where you create schematics, you always have your original design files, which is a proof that you created them yoursef.
Once again: the production is a 3RD PARTY SERVICE that has nothing to do with the license!
You are paying for the production. The commercial act here is the PRODUCTION, the use here of the schematics is still NON-COMMERCIAL (unless you want to SELL the devices later on making profit, then YOU are using the schematics for commercial purposes)-.
Wrong. The schematics won't help you create a new CPU board.
The CPU board has to be created completely new from scratch.
And you can LEARN the pinout from the document and use that for any commercial product you like.
A new CPU board has as much to do with the license as rain has to do with rocks.
ED and Nikolaus got there's Reason to chose these type of license, and it sounds great even if it's not the opensource license some wantet..
Now stop derailing this thread so EvilDragon can post his highres pictures of the hopefully last Prototype bevore massproduktion
Now stop derailing this thread so EvilDragon can post his highres pictures of the hopefully last Prototype bevore massproduktion
comradekingu
Glowing ember
This is open source. Open source does not necessitate free software.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
Thanks very much for taking the time to clarify your interpretation of the license ED. Since licensing is a subset of contract law, enforcing the breaking of a license requires the licensee to sue the infractor, so your (and Nikolaus') interpretation of what it means is the only thing that matters.
Splintercat
Member
Soooooooooo, back to the other points.
I'm super curious about the case and keymat tweaks.
From watching the development of the Pandora and Pyra,
I have a deep appreciation for how well the team did for the button feel on the Pandora for the gaming controls, that strikes me as one of many little details that one doesn't notice when they are done right.
For example, I don't think I've ever felt like I missed a button press for the gaming controls.
I'm super curious about the case and keymat tweaks.
From watching the development of the Pandora and Pyra,
I have a deep appreciation for how well the team did for the button feel on the Pandora for the gaming controls, that strikes me as one of many little details that one doesn't notice when they are done right.
For example, I don't think I've ever felt like I missed a button press for the gaming controls.
Note that open does not in any sense imply the schematics need to be published, certainly not under the open license. I would be happy if the freely licensed schematics were only available with the purchase of a Pyra.
While I do understand the preorder only covers the component costs, the final price we are going to be paying includes the production costs.
While I do understand the preorder only covers the component costs, the final price we are going to be paying includes the production costs.
Linux-SWAT
Forum Addict!
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,188
Plenty of Pyra pictures from this past week end here :
https://pyra-handheld.com/boards/threads/capitole-du-libre-toulouse-game-show-2016.78614/
https://pyra-handheld.com/boards/threads/capitole-du-libre-toulouse-game-show-2016.78614/
Kippykip
BFG 9000
One thing I was wondering, how will the system handle mouse/analog controls?
As there may be times you would want to stop controlling the mouse when playing a game that uses the gamepad instead.
As there may be times you would want to stop controlling the mouse when playing a game that uses the gamepad instead.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 11,411
Generally with the pandora there is a setting menu that can switch between modes, However when you're in a game that uses it them joystick/gamepad mode usually you can get by with using the touchscreen if you need the mouse. That said, many 3D games you had to quit the game if you wanted to get back to the desktop due to the nature of how the 3D acceleration worked. Also many games used mouse mode for analog control...
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
I broke my LCD connector on mine, so turned it into a sort of TV-out-only unit. I find I can control most menus using the d-pad, when the nubs are in joystick mode.
Hồng Thất Công
Đả Cẩu Bổng Pháp
Pyra is already opensoured 'cause I can open it up much easier than any other devices out there
I hate those fundamentalists Grench pointed out. They are greedy and can't get enough of anything. If I were ED, I wouldn't even release the schematics now. I would wait after I sell a million or more Pyras first.
I hate those fundamentalists Grench pointed out. They are greedy and can't get enough of anything. If I were ED, I wouldn't even release the schematics now. I would wait after I sell a million or more Pyras first.
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
Thanks for the permission.
*smashes furniture and burns it*
Really looking forward to the Pyra! Maybe fire will get it done faster.
There is more drama than I expected in this thread. Thanks to those making the Pyra, all preorderers and other supporters, and those that want to make it more beneficial to society by suggesting the licensing be more open.
