Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Submission + - A Free and Open Replacement for Wireless LAN (qi-hardware.com) 3

dvdkhlng writes: Qi-Hardware, the community that brought us the Ben NanoNote handheld computer, have just released their next piece of all-out free and open hardware: the AtBEN+AtUSB wireless dongles. Aiming for a solution that works without proprietary firmware blobs, WLAN compatability was abandoned. Instead the project went for simpler, yet more open 6LowPAN technology.

The first batch of AtBen+AtUSB dongles is now ready for shipment trough Tuxbrain. Designs and source code are available under GPL and CC licenses.

Comment Re:Open source? (Score 1) 99

Because LICENSE.LATTICE Appendix C supersedes it (and the 'confidential' file itself points to that). Why do you deliberately ignore all evidence that points to an official and proper open-sourcing by Lattice in 2006, most importantly what they say and offer for download on their website? It seems you have your mind made up, that's fine. We will continue to use the open-source Mico32 core until Lattice makes it clear that we (and the rest of the world minus you) misunderstood them.

Comment Re:Open source? (Score 1) 99

Then you will like to hear that Milkymist licenses every new line of code under the GPL, version 3. That's our default license... If you want to help replacing the Apache-style licensed Mico32 core with a copyleft (GPL) one, that would be great. As of right now, 75% of the HDL sources of the Milkymist SoC are already GPL licensed, the other 25% are LatticeMico32 open source...

Comment Re:Open source? (Score 1) 99

Are you sure the documents and sources cannot be retrieved without registration? Did you try to click on the links? It downloads for me (and I'm not registered)...
Can you try this one for example (random pick) http://www.latticesemi.com/dynamic/view_document.cfm?document_id=40936

Comment Re:Open source? (Score 1) 99

Sure, anybody can edit wikipedia, but you are not anybody. I have never said that section 11 applies, you speak to yourself and don't read documents from beginning to end. Not a good start for someone studying a license imho. I don't think section 11 applies, I think it's Appendix C, which you seem to not have gotten to yet. I think the starting point is here, "LatticeMico32 Open, Free 32-Bit Soft Processor" http://www.latticesemi.com/products/intellectualproperty/ipcores/mico32/index.cfm

Comment Re:Too difficult to read the license again (Score 1) 99

The genesis of the source files seems to go through the Mico System Builder, then mico32_72_linux.tar. I was wrong pointing you to sections 1-xx, it should be covered by Appendix C. You said you had to register to download the mico32 stuff, but I am just downloading it without any registration. I will dig up more for you :-)

Comment Re:I did read it. (Score 1) 99

We've done that like many others ("study the license carefully"), but you don't trust our results. That's your problem. The entire LATTICE.LICENSE applies to those files, not just section 11. Get your mind off of section 11, start reading at 1. Then 2. Then 3. and so on. If you don't want to do that, fine. Still your problem. Until you found out about Mico32 for the first time (today), the entire world knows since 2006 that Lattice has open-sourced the Mico32 core. Unfortunately they didn't pick a standard license (BSD/X11), but had to write their own. One reason for that is that they specifically wanted to include manufacturing rights in the 'open' part, otherwise people like you would come and say "they didn't specifically allow manufacturing, so it's no good for manufacturing". Moreover, they opened the Mico32 core because they know (like people from the Milkymist project know as well), that the main value comes from peripherals and SoC integration, not the core. There are a number of peripherals Lattice did not open source. The Milkymist project took the open Mico32 core, and added their own, Milkymist developed, open peripherals to it. If it were indeed true that the Milkymist project, together with the rest of the world, misunderstood the Lattice open source license since 2006, the Milkymist SoC would remove the (then) proprietary Mico32 core and switch to another core or write their own core. The Mico32 core files you pointed to (with the confusing proprietary/confidential header) make up a little less than 25% of the entire Milkymist SoC. We are very interested in those files being unquestionably open source, we fully respect copyrights and intellectual property, as any proper free software project would.

Comment Re:Too difficult to read the license again (Score 2) 99

Thanks a lot for contacting Lattice, I hope they can help you. What you ask them is hastily written nonsense, but maybe they can calm you down somewhat :-) I really think you should slow down a bit, think more, act less. But that's up to you of course...

Who claimed that "section 11 of this license applies to those files"? Kristian Paul merely pointed to section 11. The entire license agreement applies to those files, specifically 1. 2. a. 2. b. 2. c. and so on. Maybe you read the entire license first and slow down a little. Section 11 is for 3rd party open source stuff Lattice included with their open source stuff. If you read 11.a., you should at least read 11.b and 11.c as well. Best is if you start at 1. And actually you should start on that latticesemi.com webpage you found yourself. Don't you think they want to tell you something there? What is it?

You did find something good still - the confusing "proprietary and confidential" remark at the top of some files that Lattice open-sourced under the license you haven't fully read yet. Let's see what Lattice says, you certainly wrote to them in the most disturbing style, so hopefully that wakes them up and you get a response... If the Slashdot comment section is really closed before you get an answer, please post to the milkymist development list.

Comment Re:Open source always takes a backseat. (Score 4, Informative) 99

All wrong :-) It has no metal shielding because it is so well designed. We absolutely went to an EMI test lab to be able to classify it under CE and FCC regulation. Under FCC regulation, Milkymist One is a non-intential radiator and thus does not require an FCC ID. It is enough that the manufacturer verifies that it is in fact meeting the requirements of a non-intentional radiator. The entire test lab report (31 pages) is online


Comment Re:Whoop dee doo (Score 4, Informative) 99

-- disclosure: I manufacture Milkymist One -- If it's a dev kit, it's the most stunningly beautiful dev kit I know. Have you seen the pictures? http://en.qi-hardware.com/wiki/Milkymist_One_pictures Technical superiority is very hard to judge, our goal is to make it super easy to use (basically just turn on), and then allow for anybody to dive deeper and deeper into it, all the way to the free hardware acceleration in the fpga. Tutorials needs to be written, videos made, etc. I will take some time. But please accept for the 'dev kit' feedback: From day 1 of this project, we didn't want it to be a dev kit. All we care about is make very easy to use, beautiful, long lasting and fun products.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne