[Freedombox-discuss] Kickstarter's initial goal was reached

[Paul Gardner-Stephen]

Hello Thomas,

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> wrote:
>
> Bdale, this sounds great and also leaves me wondering
> something:
>
>> What you need to realize is that the "Free Software project" side of
> the
>> freedom box vision, which is what most folks here can easily identify
>> with and want to participate in, is only one part of the equation.  If
>> we really want the results of such a project to materially improve
>> freedom in the world, then eventually we need people everywhere to be
>> able to walk into a local technology hardware provider and be able to
>> just buy a pre-loaded freedom box off the shelf.  At least as easily
> as
>> they can buy a wireless access point or router, or a notebook
> computer.
>> And hopefully as easily as they can acquire a mobile phone!
>
>
> Fantastic but it raises this paradox I've been trying to
> wrap my head around.   Maybe its good to raise this earlier
> rather than later:
>
> We want to (quickly but also in a lasting way) distribute
> and decentralize personal computing and communication.
> We want it, with the help of freeboxfoundation to get really
> big and very accessible.
>
> How do we prevent the freedom box project (both the software side
> and the larger "get it on the shelves" side) from *itself* becoming
> exactly the kind of centralized point of control we want to get
> away from?

Well, that diversity already exists!

FreedomBox is one instance.
VillageTelco.org is another instance.
ServalProject.org is yet another instance (mine).

FreedomBox is developing a traditional infrastructure (read mains
power) solution.
VillageTelco.org has an "Africanised" 9-35v, doesn't blow up if you
poke mains in it "fixed-line" solution.
ServalProject.org has a smart-phone solution.

Thus we have diversity in separate project structures, exist in
different countries (VillageTelco is in South Africa, ServalProject is
in Australia, and FreedomBox seems to be primarily US/Europe),
separate hardware development and manufacture chains, and there will
be diversity in the extra services that each offers, too.

Also, they each have differing strengths for addressing different
problem sets, but together they can address many more use-cases much
better than any one of them can alone.

This is why interoperability between all three is vital.

I am probably sounding like a broken record making this point multiple
times, but it really is really, really important, really.

I'll try to stop saying it now ;)

Paul.