FreeCalypso hardware update

[Serg l]

I would say that in my opinion it is all valid points. However it is not
enough to attract more active community members if the whole effort will be
locked on a single person.

There are some fine examples when reimplementation was as good or better
than original. Look at Samba, over time it got some unique fetures while
maintaining high level of compatibility with M$.

As more people get involved, more opportunities for funding will come up.

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 8:16 PM Mychaela Falconia <mychaela.falconia at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Serg wrote:
>
> > As long as there is no product offered on the
> > market the infringement could be protected by fair use clause.
>
> You know full well that offering end-user-usable hardware products on
> the market is my primary goal.  It is true, however, that I engage in
> this "business" with the full expectation of it being strictly a loss
> in economic terms and never a profit, hence I do consider it a form of
> non-profit activity.
>
> Back in the USSR we even had an official term for such enterprises:
> "planovo-ubytochnoe predpriyatie", literally translating as "enterprise
> planned to operate at a loss" - an activity that is deemed necessary,
> but is expected to be a loss economically.
>
> > Even if a limited number of FC boards will be made, it
> > is still all experimental stuff.
>
> While it is unfortunate that the current physical form factor of our
> only available modem product (FCDEV3B) puts it into the category of
> "development" or "experimental" and I lack the budget to repackage it
> into more of an official end product form factor (the needed budget
> would be on the order of 10 to 30 kUSD), the core FreeCalypso modem
> solution aside from the packaging form factor is very much a turnkey
> finished product, not experimental in the slightest.
>
> > 4. There is a good chance that TI will not come forward and demand
> > anything, however the easy way to protect would be registering LLC and
> > acting from the name of that entity, rather than an individual.
>
> I already have such an LLC, named Falconia Partners LLC - but in
> relation to FreeCalypso I use it to stand as the official manufacturer
> of record for IMEI and radio compliance purposes, and NOT for the
> purpose of trying to hide myself from TI.  I don't hide, I stand tall
> and proud under my own chosen female name which also became my legal
> name in USA as of 2016-03-02.
>
> > In this case it would be possible just close the shop and walk away,
>
> I will never, ever, ever walk away from my baby - that is NOT what a
> true Mother does.  If they attack the freecalypso.org domain name
> registration or the server hosting, I may have to switch to operating
> as a Tor hidden service whose physical location and ISP service path
> cannot be easily tracked for the purpose of shutting it down - but I
> will never stop developing, promoting and distributing my FreeCalypso
> work, and I don't hide who I am.
>
> > There is another complication here, the codebase
> > contains components which were licensed to TI by other parties, so we are
> > looking at obtaining multiple releases, which could be difficult.
>
> In TCS211 and in FreeCalypso (markedly unlike TCS3.2/LoCosto) there is
> only one such non-TI component: the Nucleus PLUS RTOS.
>
> > 5. It would be highly desirable to rewrite entire codebase using existing
> > sources as a reference implementation. This is completely legal
>
> It may be legal, but I can never support or endorse such an approach,
> as any such reimplementation attempt will always be hopelessly inferior
> to the original.
>
> I believe that the most proper approach would be to exercise the power
> of eminent domain aka compulsory purchase.  Any government, no matter
> how small, even a tiny city or town government has the power of eminent
> domain, and they could exercise this power by terminating TI's socially
> unacceptable claim of copyright and paying them a one-time monetary
> compensation for their loss, compensation based on reasonable fair
> market value of the "IP" in question, not whatever crazy unreasonable
> amount TI might demand.  I believe that a reasonable compensation to
> TI for forcible compulsory purchase of their IP would be on the order
> of 10 kUSD.
>
> I am not able to offer up 10 kUSD from my own pocket at the present
> moment because I need to get my sex correction surgery done first, but
> after I get this surgery done (probably another couple of years), I
> will make another offer to TI, 10 kUSD in exchange for them releasing
> their code under a BSD license.  If they don't agree, the next step
> would be to shop around for a friendly government anywhere in the world
> (it's a big world with widely different politics and ideologies) who
> could do the eminent domain / compulsory purchase procedure, with me
> donating the 10 kUSD to the great public cause.
>
> In the meantime until then, the simple solution is to put the entirety
> of the legal risk on me personally and not on any other person or
> company or entity.  The way I see it, if you buy a FreeCalypso hw
> product from me and merely use it as a user, then YOU are not
> committing any copyright infringement, only I am.  As an analogy,
> imagine if Samsung were to sue Apple saying that Apple's products
> infringe on some Samsung IP.  In that scenario only Apple as the maker
> and seller of infringing products could be held legally liable, and
> most certainly NOT every Joe and Jane who bought a product from an
> Apple store.  If you buy a product from a store and use it as intended
> (i.e., don't use it as a murder weapon or as a tool to disrupt
> networks or whatever) and then some judge finds that the product you
> have legally purchased contains some parts that infringe on someone
> else's IP, it is a problem only for the maker and seller of that
> product, and NOT a problem for you as a mere consumer-buyer of that
> product.
>
> The same argument can be extended to post-sale firmware updates.
> Suppose your iPhone receives an over-the-air firmware update from
> Apple, and the software in this update (which may not have been
> present in the phone at the moment you physically bought it) is deemed
> to infringe on someone else's copyright.  Once again it would be a
> problem for Apple as the distrubutor of that fw update and NOT for you
> as its recipient - there is no conceivable way that any judge would
> rule otherwise.  Thus if you download an official FreeCalypso firmware
> update for your legally-bought FreeCalypso hw product from
> ftp.freecalypso.org, you are no different from an iPhone user
> receiving and installing an update from Apple, and you are similarly
> protected against any legal claims against you.
>
> The only person or entity who could possibly be sued or prosecuted for
> copyright infringement under this arrangement is ME, and I don't mind:
> if my predecessor some 2000 y ago was perfectly willing to be nailed
> up on a cross for his beliefs and for doing what he felt was right,
> then exposing myself to what I consider to be a very tiny risk of
> being sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement is the least I can
> do.
>
> Hasta la Victoria, Siempre,
> Mychaela aka The Mother
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at freecalypso.org
> https://www.freecalypso.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>