Heia, squarepusher
You are in full agreement, and I get where you are coming from. I actually said it before you did, on IRC.
Companies taking advantage of the license, without giving back, actually means they are not contributing to their own ecosystem.
Effectively free admission to the competition, where they have free entry, and none of the brakes pulled.
One such measure is bringing to court companies that add insult to injury by infringing non-commercial clauses. "Debugging" means nothing when the license says distribution btw.
I don't know what NC licenses are in use, but the GPLv3 deals in distribution.
Short of controlling the license, you need a company to have control.
We know how ED runs things, because he does this sort of thing. From past infotainments, we know he doesn't like selling stuff that infringes on the GPL, so he doesn't cut those deals when it is brought to his attention.
What he also doesn't like is running a repair-shop as a charity. As a customer, I want angry devs no more than i want ED to get taken advantage of. Many companies cut corners by opening sales elsewhere, skimping on quality control, component consistency and engineering quality. A lot of companies don't treat their re-sellers any better than the software guys.
I am not one, nor do I do anything that I could hope to get paid for, but I do my fair share of volunteering to help out open hardware / free software initiatives, and it doesn't often involve offers of payment. ED was talking about contracting me for editing the wiki on here.
The wiki. If I don't have to tell you how rare that is, you don't have to tell me.
Dealing with the facade of companies that do what they want is something nobody wants, nonetheless it is what we customers are faced with.
We know something about it, because other than sharing all his own stuff, ED is effectively also the customer support and insider insight for the stuff he sells. He doesn't hide things. As a side hobby he brings his reputation and experience into the ring by commenting on crowdfunding projects that only exist and look good in CAD. Who else does that?
The openpandora is the greatest example of openness in a community initiative to date, and it isn't a get rich quick scheme, nor is the Pyra. We wouldn't have it now without him, and the Pyra would stop being a thing if he didn't put in absurd amounts of work for it to happen. He isn't perfect, but humble in failing. By now you must have gotten
some idea of what he is about. It can't get more ED than a free unit on trust and no questions asked when it doesn't pan out.
The picture I am trying to paint here is one of entertaining the idea of ED getting to produce the hardware, and being able to ship the software along with it. In my head he would let you sell hardware yourself, beyond that there is really nothing that doesn't involve starting a hardware business yourself.
There is no need to ask if you get the splashscreen, that is granted. Look no further to find the people that think that sort of thing is cool, it is what this community consists of. People that look inside the box and think outside it.
I tried to add some value by making a logo for it, and it didn't pan out. Were it to have worked, I would have refused payment, because I want to see it happen.
Never would I have done the same for any "similar" offering. I can't mentally construct a better initiative, or the energy and skills to be one, nor have I actually ever seen one. What I have seen is a great many well-meaning initiatives that strand on experience of producing hardware. It is hard, and cutting your teeth on the regular crowdfunding crowd lowers chances below "likely" right out the gate, nevermind any take in it. You can't hope for a better chance to get a share of the profits.
