Power, Memory and Schematics

[matzesu]

Personally, i ditnt care much about the Open Shematics, as i cant read them anyway, my educatial background was more praktical, whe had DOS Computers in Shool, and my first Training was Bakery,
The Pandora was my first contakt to the Linux World..
In Shool, i had pretty much respekt in therms of soldering..
So Pyras Shematics are for mee a book whit seven seals..
Its great that there are open, but im more interestet on the Device..

In the first place i want my Pyra to have a new Pandora Device, as my Pandora got some issues whit the Screen Backlight, its works, but not dat good anymore..

 

[Linux-SWAT]

The screen with the new touch surface is perfect, there's no light effect.

 

[matzesu]

^^ Yes, the same as i feel now..

The screen with the new touch surface is perfect, there's no light effect.

I ditnt had issues whit light Effects, i have the issue, that i cant controll my backlight anymore, its allways on when my Pandora is on, and on full brighness,
when i shut down my Pandora, the screen Backlight also is off, so its only effects the batterylivetime in Runningmode, and its makes the standbye mode obsolete..

 

[FBnil]

super curious about the case and keymat tweaks.

Yes! A keyboard layout thread!!!
I am also curious about the re-rounding of the keymat. (@ED: please post pics....)

 

[comradekingu]

Well, this is "documentation available",

Yes it is, and that doesn't have to mean anything less than

maybe "shared sourced"

Yes it is, and that doesn't mean anything more.

or "source available"

Yes. And trying to coin a meaningless term, that is vague, to bring meaning to a term that had these problems to begin with, isn't solving anything.

(in license terminology)

luckily it isn't license terminology, in any meaningful sense. If it doesn't, for the purpose of a license, do anything beyond 2/3 meaningless terms above, it is not the tool of someone with more far-reaching standards.

but not "open source",

Exact same meaningless term. So yes. While open source has the adoption that "source available" hasn't, it still means the same thing. Socially it means you are missing a point.
Being open source is not an offset to being not a lot of other things, it actually doesn't go beyond sharing source. Close but not cigar software. Yes.

which is a well defined term.

It means next to nothing, where closed source is nothing. It's definition is that of freedom one, and maybe not even that alone. For the purpose of being OSI open source, it is meaningless. For the purpose of implying that it is, as in how you understand it socially, it is vague. In use, stated, expressed or otherwise, it holds no water for any purpose other than using that ambiguity the other way around.

And "Free software" is only the subset of the free software foundation,

No. There are many other free software foundations/companies/etc. For the purpose of clarity, speaking here of the free that would in German be "Frei", which specifically means free as in not "only gratis" (which is freeware). Compound words another non-strength of English. X_x
If you arent using freeware about most open source software, why would you call most free software open software?

the broader context and term is "free and open (source)", less butt hurt elitist more inclusive (including the creative commons, osi etc)

FOSS is only a way to get away with saying free software and not have anyone misinterpret it in English.
If what you want to say is FOSS, open source is meaningless. If you for that purpose want to be meaningless, you ought to be, but cannot be stopped by, saying open source.
Free(frei) or libre, qualifies open source, (just like OSI does) so you don't have to use "and" there. What the OSI does is free software, but in a way that hollows out what other free software foundations do. Which is to ensure that the software is free as in freedom. And then we get into why FSF also being copyleft (freedom 4) doesn't take away from how free as in software means 0-3

Well, I saw up to now no FSF like insisting and furious demanding of the one "real free license" but reasonable arguing and giving feedback. While this opening up is great and should be praised this is currently an "almost" with this announcement and license choice, which can and should be called out. It is also a reiterating the mistake the creative commons noticed years ago when they stopped recommending the NC license for cultural works for its problems in many contexts.

I don't really understand what you said, but here is what the FSF says about free software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
It isn't the 'copyleft software foundation', it is the Free Software Foundation.

 

[Grench]

This license stuff is important, especially for community projects.

I think we may have just found the basis for your misunderstanding. The Pyra is NOT a, "Community Project". It is a for profit device project by a private company which is owned and operated by (an) individual(s) with big hearts who have considered and incorporated input from an online community who volunteer suggestions.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of a company taking rights or control away from a community. That is incorrect. This online forum community has a symbiotic relationship with DragonBox. Both benefit from this relationship. Without the community input, the Pyra might not be as amazing as it is likely to be. There is a LOT of community ideas used to augment the device and it's functionality.

I personally feel that I have contributed several ideas that have been incorporated into both the Pyra and it's predecessor. So, I suppose you could blame me for the lanyard attachment point on the back of the Pandora. I was pretty vocal about retaining 2 full size SD slots for the Pyra, so I can shoulder some of the blame for that if you don't like them. If you don't like that the screen/keyboard brightness controller is consolidated to a single button or a good chunk of the keyboard layout - I'll take a big part of that blame too. My input on those items does not grant me any special claim over the end result or to the companies that created them. I gave those ideas because I wanted THEIR project to be better and generate a better device for ME to buy. Symbiotic.

In the end, though, this is a Private Project that accepts Community Input. It is NOT a "Community Project".

 

[AVahne]

More pictures please!
I've been trying to skim past all the completely pointless legal in order to find new, beautiful photos of the Pyra and am now saddened to see that ED had to take precious time out of his busy schedule (that he could've put toward work or SLEEPING) to explain things to a couple of ne'erdowells.

 

[Askarus]

It isn't as if the license is of any use for anyone here.
I guess there won't be a single person who wants to recreate and sell the Pyra.
And If anyone really wants to do more than what's already free to do simply ask EvilDragon or hns. This thing is made by people you can talk to if you need something.

That license won't change anything of what the Pyra can do.

If I would be the one to make the decision I would now close again and only give it to people who ask politely and don't complain.

 

[shaddim]

In the end, though, this is a Private Project that accepts Community Input. It is NOT a "Community Project".

Well, well, the project organisators and the developers who take the financial, development and operational risk, utilize and rely on the existing community in many ways. Also financially,1000 preorders are approx. a half million $ (1000 x 400$), we should not downplay that. Practically, it is a project which knowingly and strongly involves a community, building up on an existing community. This is a kind of community (involving) project; what relationship & responsibilities therefore between the official/legal organisators and the community arises we have to agree on / find out. (For this concrete situation the mistake was not earlier to define what "open" means exactly)

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of a company taking rights or control away from a community.

No, that's not my perception. But it's also not my perception that the "community" must and should be glad for everything given to them ("the openness as extra" argumentation -> no, "openness" was and is advertised as feature). I believe indeed the developers need the community at least as much as way around, exactly like you, as you described the relationship as "symbiotic". And this is a good thing, the positive cooperation aspect I like in the project. And therefore I believe the community should be able and allowed to give feedback not only on technical aspects but also on legal aspects...this is not a topic, which should be taboo to discuss. Discussion happened, was noticed and reasonable responded by the devs. So, from my perspective the situation is fine.
[doublepost=1480701169,1480700101][/doublepost]

If I would be the one to make the decision I would now close again and only give it to people who ask politely and don't complain.

That's the problem/good thing with such licensed material, you can't remove & "close" it anymore... the genie is out of the bottle, the PDF will be available & shared forever under CC BY-NC.

 

[error]

That's the problem/good thing with such licensed material, you can't remove & "close" it anymore... the genie is out of the bottle, the PDF will be available & shared forever under CC BY-NC.

You can't revoke the license you granted, but you can stop distributing it, and/or release it under a different license. You can't stop others from redistributing it, or from using the more permissive of the two licenses. At this point in time, it's possible that there are sufficiently few copies in existence that just not hosting the file might make it difficult to obtain.

As the copyright holder, ED could release a different version of the document with a less permissive license, which wouldn't be covered by the old license (since it's a different document). The newer version may then become much more prevalent than the old version, as it's being actively distributed while the old one is not - and people searching may not think to look for older versions.

Not that I think that any of this is a good idea.

 

[shaddim]

...

hmmm, this seems to be a serious topic for you, are you involved with the FSF or a member?

While open source has the adoption that "source available" hasn't, it still means the same thing.

Well, the FSF it tries since years to water down and downplay "open source", for instance by claiming "open source" is weakly defined and is the same as source available. I dislike, I have to admit, this non-productive infight of the FSF for control and supremacy. In fact, "free software" is the worse terminology (as even RMS admits) which was taken/stolen from the public domain ecosystem and has confusing ambiguity with "freeware".

"Source available" is not the same as "open source", here are some examples

If you arent using freeware about most open source software, why would you call most free software open software?

As it is the better and broadly accepted term?

FOSS is only a way to get away with saying free software and not have anyone misinterpret it in English.

This is a way of finally ending this boring and harmful terminology infight pushed by the FSF.

Free(frei) or libre, qualifies open source, (just like OSI does) so you don't have to use "and" there. What the OSI does is free software, but in a way that hollows out what other free software foundations do.

No, the OSI saved the FOSS ecosystem in the 90s and 2000s, without them the polarizing approach of Stallman would have repelled anyone and we wouldn't have the successful Linux + the FOSS ecosystem around it.

It isn't the 'copyleft software foundation', it is the Free Software Foundation.

The FSF is even the GPL foundation, they fight not only permissive licenses but also other copyleft licenses, like the CDDL. In the CDDL case quite successfully, was used by only a handful of projects later...but some of the FSF FUD was recently debunked when ZFS was included into Ubuntu despite tries to prevent it and threats to go to court.

The FSF is doing the interesting acrobatic on hand to claim that "everything is Free software and we are stewards & political arm of the whole FOSS ecosystem" and on the other hand fighting these aspects beside the small GNU/GPL ecosystem.

 

[comradekingu]

OT reply to the type T roll-post above.

Spoiler

You dont have to be a FSF member to make a reasoned argument.
The FSF isnt only claiming that open source is a meaningless definition, it has no provisions for the defense of actual user freedom. Open source gets you nowhere. Unless where you want to go is a dead end argument where you have to make stuff up. Which is a slippery slope to arguing that some are trying to point something out, rather than pointing to the contrary yourself.
And yes, the FSF provides a license, and no, it is not fighting for control and supremacy. You would know this if you read what i linked to, which was from the FSF.
Freeware is a well defined term, meaning gratis software. I am unaware of RMS stating free software is a worse terminology than open source. [citation needed]

FLOSS, which supposedly means Free/Libre and open source software, is stupid in a number of ways. All you needed was Libre, appending 'software' if that isnt clear from the context.
FOSS is only needed in English that i know of, so there is a great reason nobody else uses FLOSS.
We can discuss that if you want on PM or in a new thread.

Open source however has no requirements for freedoms 0-3, whereas free software does. It isn't the same thing. In languages other than English there is no need to specify, but anyone who speaks it will be aware that the duality does not provide certainty.

Where in other languages free software always means free as in freedom, for open source it is consistent with the exact same freedom 1 as in English. Which, alone, again, isn't free software (0-3). In some it is even (directly translated) open source code. No more, no less. How could it be spelled out any clearer?
Open source (0) is no more a guarantee of free software, than shareware is a guarantee for anything more than it is sharable.

Notice how quickly "open core" fell out of fashion? It is because those people were the bad guys, and they can just say "open source" and " Linux" instead. Everyone gets along there magically, but who is it that all of a sudden squirm at the sight of GPLv3? Users? No, its the same people that take it away when they have the chance. It is the same people that fought cahoots and rails over adopting Linux (GPLv2).

InfoWorld is really the decider in terminology. rolleyes.jpeg2000
InfoWorld - the newsweekly for microcomputer users.

You would think that maybe back in 83, making the distinction was a bit unclear to all but only the hardest of hackers, when you haven't gotten the idea even now in 2016.

Suggesting a foundation made in 1998 saved the FOSS (a word from 98) ecosystem, and saying without it Linux wouldn't exist, which btw is from 1991, and saying 'the FOSS ecosystem' without mention of GPL, which is from 1983, isn't very factual, but it is satire. It's not so much that you aren't knowledgable or joined the game late, its more that you invent arguments in defense of a position. Otherwise welcome aboard.

Here is a quote from Linus Thorvalds, the original creator of the operating system most of us use:

"I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint."

Lets revisit your claim that it is the FSF that is fighting Free software as the GNU foundation it isn't.
Seems linus is in on it, and i quote: "
"Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about,"

No, the FSF is from 1985, the GPL foundation is from 83.

You mean the license which SUN thinks is good for business? The SUN that isn't in business.
CDDL is a weak copyelft license, incompatible with the strong GPL, atleast you could argue it, and it hasn't been tested in court.
Not only is CDDL irrelevant, ZFS is too. Lets cite linus

"Userspace filesystem? The problem is right there. Always has been. People who think that userspace filesystems are realistic for anything but toys are just misguided."

ZFS on linux is going to be just dandy now that you don't have to run it in fuse. Totally everyone I know will use it as their main filesystem. All the distros were just waiting for canonical to show the way. Year of solaris on the (linux) desktop.

Look up what FUD means.
You claim FUD, and then quote with something you made up in its entirety.

If you think the GNU/GPL ecosystem is small, you are either delusional or mistaken. The paraimaginary effects seem to have taken hold of your arguments.

So there you have it, for the purpose of user freedom and ensuring it:
Strong copyleft > weak copyleft > free software > open source > closed source

The question is where you put the invariant sections. It sure isn't atop free software…

 

[ThinkPad]

More pictures please!
I've been trying to skim past all the completely pointless legal in order to find new, beautiful photos of the Pyra and am now saddened to see that ED had to take precious time out of his busy schedule (that he could've put toward work or SLEEPING) to explain things to a couple of ne'erdowells.

Yeah, ditch the legal stuff, and post some pictures of the new case.

 

[ClockworkCoder]

Yeah, ditch the legal stuff, and post some pictures of the new case.

Second that. Legal stuff should be a new thread. Personally couldn't give a rat's arse about it.

 

[Askarus]

I really don't like the fact that EvilDragon is wasting his time to justify his actions concerning things he alone (or hns I don't know) own and can do with it whatever he likes to do.

I'd rather want to hear some news about the Pyra instead.

 

[PCXT]

Wow, thanks for the schematics, it looks promising. I don't have much experience with electronics design of ARM systems, I usually do retrocomputing and some microcontrollers in different combinations. What's with this "X-ed" keyboard parts? No keyboard yet or netlisting to multiple boards by hand? (Personally with my circuits I'm doing the reverse thing if I want to scatter single circuit on multiple PCBs - generate large netlists and filter them out, sometimes with own fields)


Now the legal stuff. I think there should definitely be some license like CC-BY-NC-SA, but with exceptions to extensions development. Why? That's not the thing about copying the design, as schematics are good aid for developing extensions and it sometimes requires to design and build a "development clone" with specific signals exposed or protection applied on connectors. This is normal.
The reason why I'm against completely opening it is a reality. Nobody cares about open licenses when it comes to business!
I think that selling Pyra-clones and then shutting down Pyra community because of any illogical reason supported by bribed lawyers can be easily fit into any larger company's business plan. It was previously done with numerous open source projects before (e.g. this self-hosted OS running in browser). And of course this will be done "post-democratic" way ("post-democratic" like famous "post-truth", manipulating community that they will decide to shut down).
And when it comes to a law, Open Source can be defeated by its own weapon - time. In Poland for example, we had an ebook reader manufacturer who "borrowed" Linux code and never released modifications in GPL. So they just prolonged all actions until the reader became obsolete, by multiplying excuses and artificial conditions. Like in all these non-working Linux drivers which are "fixed" by removing when some devs think that they are obsolete. I think here it's easier to point out CC license violation.
Not to say about my personal website, which without a big sign "CC-BY-NC-SA" under menu was mirrored to numerous fillers for SEO pages. Strange for a website with maximum 10 visitors... per month .

 

[hns]

What's with this "X-ed" keyboard parts?

The individual buttons are just copper maeanders on the PCB and nothing the factory has to buy or install. But EAGLE draws an "X" if it shall not appear in the automatically generated material list. So removing the "X" would tidy up the schematics on one hand but add confusion for the factory data.

 

[shaddim]

OT reply on FSF stuff

Spoiler

You dont have to be a FSF member to make a reasoned argument.
The FSF isnt only claiming that open source is a meaningless definition, it has no provision....

Claiming so doesn't make it reality. reality is "open source software" licenses are practical identical as the fsf ones so the same freedoms are encoded.

And yes, the FSF provides a license, and no, it is not fighting for control and supremacy. You would know this if you read what i linked

Yes i read the fsf propaganda/position , i know them for years. Therefore i'm very careful in accepting their reality representation. They have an agenda and are willing to misrepresent the facts in their favour.

freeware is a well defined term, meaning gratis software. I am unaware of RMS stating free software is a worse terminology than open source. [citation needed]

rms stated that choosing "free software" was maybe a mistake... he would have chosen now libre software.

open source however has no requirements for freedoms 0-3, whereas free software does. It isn't the same thing. In languages other than English there is no need to specify, but anyone who speaks it will be aware that the duality does not provide certainty.

Claiming so doesn't make it reality. Open source software is as well defined as the stuff the fsf is propagandizing, with the advantage that open source misses the freeware ambiguity and is propagandized in non polarizing way.

where in other languages free software always means free as in freedom, for open source it is consistent with the exact same freedom 1 as in English. Which, alone, again, isn't free software (0-3). In some it is even (directly translated) open source code. No more, no less. How could it be spelled out any clearer?
Open source (0) is no more a guarantee of free software, than shareware is a guarantee for anything more than it is sharable.

"Open source software" is well defined and less ambigious than "free software". "Open (source)" alone while with ambiguity (see the current open pyra confusion), it indicates the important aspect unlike "free" which mostly and firstly fiancially associated.

notice how quickly "open core" fell out of fashion? It is because those people were the bad guys, and they can just say "open source" and " Linux" instead. Everyone gets along there magically, but who is it that all of a sudden squirm at the sight of GPLv3? Users? No, its the same people that take it away when they have the chance. It is the same people that fought cahoots and rails over adopting Linux (GPLv2).

The gpl was a failure as the fsf insisted on clauses they couldn't bring everyone behind. the fsf hoped that they could enforce gplv3 on everyone, despite the license compatibilty. This failed the gplv2 is still more used than the gplv3. Even some projects downgraded to gplv2 again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility

is really the decider in terminology. rolleyes.jpeg2000
InfoWorld - the newsweekly for microcomputer users.

You would think that maybe back in 83, making the distinction was a bit unclear to all but only the hardest of hackers, when you haven't gotten the idea even now in 2016.

Suggesting a foundation made in 1998 saved the FOSS (a word from 98) ecosystem, and saying without it Linux wouldn't exist, which btw is from 1991, and saying 'the FOSS ecosystem' without mention of GPL, which is from 1983, isn't very factual, but it is satire. It's not so much that you aren't knowledgable or joined the game late, its more that you invent arguments in defense of a position. Otherwise welcome aboard.

i'm well aware of the history thanks, i was around.

here is a quote from Linus Thorvalds, the original creator of the operating system most of us use:

"I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint."

Lets revisit your claim that it is the FSF that is fighting Free software as the GNU foundation it isn't.
Seems linus is in on it, and i quote: "
"Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about,"

Linus also stated that the gplv3 stood against everything he liked in the gplv2. he also stated that potentially he would use now the bsd license. Also, Linus called the fsf liars and immoral, he doesn't want to work with them anymore as the gplv3 PROCESS was so painful.

Also he warned a balkanization of the community by the gplv3, exactly what happened. The copyleft ecosystem is fragmented and in decline.

, the FSF is from 1985, the GPL foundation is from 83.

You mean the license which SUN thinks is good for business? The SUN that isn't in business.
CDDL is a weak copyelft license, incompatible with the strong GPL, atleast you could argue it, and it hasn't been tested in court.
Not only is CDDL irrelevant, ZFS is too. Lets cite linus

"Userspace filesystem? The problem is right there. Always has been. People who think that userspace filesystems are realistic for anything but toys are just misguided."

ZFS on linux is going to be just dandy now that you don't have to run it in fuse. Totally everyone I know will use it as their main filesystem. All the distros were just waiting for canonical to show the way. Year of solaris on the (linux) desktop.

Look up what FUD means.
You claim FUD, and then quote with something you made up in its entirety.

the fsf spread the FUD that the gpl and cddl are incompatible, where even gplv3 COAUTHOR eben moglen disagreed with them.

if you think the GNU/GPL ecosystem is small, you are either delusional or mistaken. The paraimaginary effects seem to have taken hold of your arguments.

Gnu losses subprojects all the time. Gnu nano, gnu tls, libreboot, gnome... the gpl ecosystem is shrinking since 2007, the gpl v3 was an enormous arrogant mistake.

 

[rygD]

Spoiler: Off-topic software stuff

Let's just skip what each camp tries to say they are about and the other isn't, and go to their true roots as they pertain to software in the modern English speaking world, as that is what really matters to the uninitiated (yes, you need to use your brain for this one), the names: free(dom) software vs. open source software.

"Free" is a word that really sucks due to multiple meanings. If you know they mean freedom, you can kinda figure out what it is about, which sounds good initially until people understand that there is responsibility that comes with freedom, and the potential confusion about what this freedom is and who or what has it. For those that think free software means freeware there won't be much benefit other than a perception of possibly lower cost. "Libre" is the much better choice imo, and I only speak English.

"Open source" is much more clear, but also much more limited. At the basic level I am discussing here, it means that the source is available for anyone to see.

The terminology shows where they started and what their focus was/is. We could argue about which definition is correct and which one is better, although that doesn't help anything. By working together and helping each other the chances of actually getting shit done is much more likely, possibly changing how things are and making both groups happy. Then both sides can fight and not hinder themselves.

 

[ible]

isn't it the case in any religion, that, the closer you are to agreeing with each other the more likely you are to create a denominational schism with your (small) differences?

maybe we can call it freedom source.

Spoiler