Which WB O2 is Best??

[Bruce]

> Firstly, if the user agreement says you can't do something, I don't have
> any beef with that.  It's your choice (the deisgners) to attach whatever
> type of agreement they want, and I respect that - it's their work.
> But, I disagree that allowing people to sell it for profit is necessarily
> bad.  I can think of a few reasons or counterexamples.

If you just look around you'll see the results of stuff like what Peter is
trying to get away with.  How many lists have done anything near what DIY
has?.
read reall close about the various time frames and then think about what
programming 101 did.  Look at the info that spung from that.  808 same
thing.
The WB was flat a$$ed revolutionary.
Study the above real close and then think about things.

> 1. If I want to play around with the WB kit, I have to first be attentive
> enough to participate in a group buy.  Not such a big deal, but it can
> take some digging to find out.  I *personally* am willing to spend some
> money for the convenience factor of buying it from a company that has it
> in stock.  Since I have been made aware that this isn't kosher, I probably
> won't do it, but I still think that there is some value in the service of
> preparing, stocking, and shipping me a board, and that I would probably be
> more likely to get one if I had that as an option.

Doing for profit, or cost plus, or any other attempted clever wording
violate's the spirit of the project.  Work on something for a few years, and
se what you think.

> 2.  The GPL is a common license agreement for software.  I would argue
> that the circuit design, (schematic, layout, etc) is software, or nearly
> the same.  The GPL allows for people to sell the source code that I wrote
> and make money off of it, provided that they distribute the source code
> without further restriction to their customers.  Linux is a huge success,
> IMO, and it is in large part due to the fact that I can walk in to CompUSA
> and buy a packaged distribution with all sorts of "free software" on
> it.  It's a service - a convenience to me, and I'm willing to spend $50 to
> get it.  I strongly believe that Linux would be less widespread (less
> successful, I would claim) if you weren't allowed to charge for it.
> So, while I will respect the license agreement, I think its misdirected.

Well, if you had participated in any of the work with the project we might
have consulted you on what you thought about it.
I don't give a rat's behind about CompUSA, Linus, or anything else, my
concern is about trying to get this list to break new ground, and advance
the art of DIY-EFI.

> Also I personally think that it should be made more clear.  The wording is
> ambiguous (to me), as I would *NOT* have thought that buying a board from
> a company at cost would be a violation on my part.

If you have any questions about the wording, the proper course of action
would be asking those that wrote it, not assuming what is meant.  The info
is readily available, and asking about it really doesn't take any work other
then just typing.   What Peter did was find out exactly what was meant and
then diliberately went off and violated it.  THEN acted the victim, to
justify his actions
Bruce
>
> -Steve


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org