I tried to fix software funding - I think people can sell licenses to their software, we can introduce new licenses that allow free usage for individuals and nonprofits and charge the companies. I am the worst marketer/seller ever and failed with getting the publicity. I still think that’s a worthwhile idea and have all the source code for this platform
>> we can introduce new licenses that allow free usage for individuals and nonprofits and charge the companies
You definitely can use such a license for your project. That's trivial to do.
However, of course, that would not be an OSS compatible license.
I'm as big a fan of OSS as the next guy. I'm also a fan of eating. I sell my work (as source code) with a proprietary license. That's how I "solved" the problem, at least for me.
Ideologically I'd love for it to be open source. But there's no sustainable way of capturing that value. So rather than not-do-it I chose to charge for it instead. (Shrug).
Unfortunately, DisplayPort and HDMI specifications are kept private unless you're a paying member. I've successfully implemented DisplayPort 1.2 in an FPGA from specification documents I found, but I could never find the specification for anything better.
My understanding is that display-port is quite open in that there is no per-device fee for implementing it, I suspect you still have to be a vesa "member" to get a legit copy of the spec.
Honestly at this point I consider VESA one of the good guys. At least compared to the alternative, spits, HDMI
I have started preparing myself mentally for a future where I give up on most of modern technology in the home and just go back to paper books/vinyls/etc.
Ehh, Framework isn't open-source hardware and its repairability is reliant on a single vendor. A nice step in the right direction, but MNT is the only company making computers that meet the bar for true "anyone can make their own" open source hardware (and certified[0] by the Open Source Hardware Association). This means MNT could go under, and anyone can still make/repair the entire machine. Not the case for Framework. If they close up shop, their hardware just lost its repairability. Their tagline "you can use them for as long as you'd like" has a big caveat - "as long as Framework parts are being manufactured". MNT doesn't have this limitation. The actual schematics are open source. Heck, even if individual components in the BOM stop shipping, compatible hardware can be made by the community because the entire computer is "known" and not encumbered by NDAs and whatnot. New PCB revisions can be made by whomever has the skill to do so. Too cool :D
that's amazing, I'll look them up! I hadn't realised they were that open, I assumed everybody was repairable like framework (i.e. pray they don't go under).
I know, right? The prior fully-OSHW computer I knew of was Novena but that was quite a while ago https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena Great quote from Bunnie still true today: "if you can't hack it, you don't own it" :)
How good will it be? Hopefully better than the OpenMoko Freerunner I once had - good idea, worst execution ever. Wouldn’t even work half decently as a phone, not to mention any other aspects of it…
I'm not sure why you got so many negative replies. As some other commenter pointed out, it can be a good use case for reusable, copyable desktops. Another use case I though about for some time - if we build an OS (a "traditional one") that consists of just a browser and only necessary stuff for running a browser, your product would be a great fit as well
So a less functional ChromeBook? I'm struggling to find the use case for your use case. Maybe for kids education if you want them to have limited capabilities? But otherwise it is just another OS with way less software support.
As it stands, that's true. However, with the continuous advancements in WebAssembly, and if we open a store where people can install open-source software, a lot of great things could come from that.
But... why not just let people install open source software as is? Stripping down the OS to "just" the browser leaves most of the OS. At that point we're arbitrarily restricting users to apps that run in the browser for no real reason or benefit.
I have not checked out any of this, but I guess the main advantage is that you can log in from anywhere, on any device that has a web browser, and have your full OS?
I've seen this "we need a stripped-down OS just for browsers" idea floating around a lot recently, and I just don't think it holds water. The browser is too big. Stripping down the OS just to accommodate the browser still leaves most of the OS.
Browsers do a lot. You're going to need the same kernel, almost all the same userspace libraries, and many of the same background processes as a fatter OS.
reply