--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:12 PM, David Niklas <do...@mail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 8 May 2017 05:45:36 +0100 > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net> wrote: >> --- >> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 >> >> >> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, zap <zap...@openmailbox.org> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 05/07/2017 04:29 PM, ronwirr...@safe-mail.net wrote: >> >> All software for the mali-t860 is open source? >> >> none. MALI is proprietary. > > I'm confused. > Luke, if you plan on making an RK3399 into an eoma project how can you > get RYF status if the mali GPU is closed source? this was discussed a year ago or so. same process as for the EOMA68-A20 > For that matter, how can you get RYF cert. for your current eoma68 > project? by leaving out the proprietary crap, simple as that. see below. > Unless I'm mistaken and it uses a different GPU? it is actually a different GPU but that does not change the assessment process carried out by the FSF. > Or you just leave the HW crippled? if the FSF considered the device to be "crippled" by it not having the 3D engine running, such that there was a genuine risk that people would actively seek out the installation of proprietary software. in the case of e.g. a proprietary on-board WIFI device that *would* constitute a genuine risk of people *actively* seeking out proprietary firmware, and consequently the FSF quite naturally refuses to certify devices that contain non-removable proprietary on-board WIFI chips. however in this case it actually turns out that if you use the proprietary 3D GPU for the tasks that i suspect you *believe* will quotes accelerate quotes certain operations (such as X11), the MALI embedded GPU (or its associated proprietary software - we can't actually tell which because we DON'T HAVE THE DAMN SOURCE) is so piss-poor at its job that it actually SLOWS DOWN CERTAIN OPERATIONS of X11. given that 2D acceleration is already covered by fbturbo, and works really well *and is entirely libre software*, the *need* for the 3D engine just for basic Small-Office / Home-Office and day-to-day usage is NOT A CONCERN. so does that make it clear that the evaluation process (which was described a year ago) is not just a hard-and-fixed process? now, if on the other hand this was a dedicated Games Console product, *that would be an entirely different matter*. applying for RYF Certification on a 3D Games Console product which has a 3D GPU which *only works with proprietary software* would probably constitute too much of a risk that buyers *WOULD* in fact go out of their way to download the proprietary drivers. but this design *isn't being sold as a 3D Games Console*, is it? does that help clarify? l. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk