OpenSource SmartWatch - PineTime

[DiTBho]

see here
NORDIC nRF52832 (arm-v7) based 

(very impressed)

[pcprogrammer]

Where can I get mine 

The PineTime is a free and open source smartwatch

I do like free stuff 

[DiTBho]

anyway, I want a MIPS-powered-but-low-power watch
with a Radio module at [ 600 .. 800 ] Mhz, a 64x64 pixel 1bit color LCD
and nothing else



(I am tempted to *copy* the PineWatch, but ... in a different way)

[DiTBho]

The PineTime watch has been mentioned in the "best-smartwatch-for-texting" list, so I think this link is also interesting.

I report here for you guys, I am not interested in the purchase of *any* smartwatche; personally for daily needs I like my super-simple CASIO AE-1500WH-1AVEF: it's more than ok.

I am going to develop something wrist wearable, but it's not technically a "watch" 


edit:
have you ever seen a watch with e-inc lcd? The SEIKO Spirit SBPA003 

[DiTBho]

Where can I get mine 

There should be a shop somewhere with a dev-kit; according to Google, ummm it seems you can buy your kit here 

[pcprogrammer]

The price is not that bad but it ain't FREE.

That was the point of my post, that the first site you linked to, stated what I quoted 

The PineTime is a free and open source smartwatch

[golden_labels]

I prefer my classic jewelery (attachment) and no longer have use for wearable computers either, but I always find it great that we have free alternatives and somehow I missed this one. Thanks! Did any of you use it, tho?

[DiTBho]

The price is not that bad but it ain't FREE.

That was the point of my post, that the first site you linked to, stated what I quoted 

The PineTime is a free and open source smartwatch

So, OpenSource -> free ->
                  kernel_panic
                       ?!? symbol undefined ?!?
                           f___r___e___e___w___h___a___t___? 


does it means

• a) "free" like "freedom", so you are free to view/modify the firmware?
• b) "free" like "air is free, so free means you don't have to pay for it"

[DiTBho]

with "as free as freedom" (to see/modify the firmware)

we have this project: open-smartwatch.

There is something on hackaday (2021) and on Youtube by Linus Tech Tips



edit:
URL fixed

[pcprogrammer]

b) "free" like "air is free, so free means you don't have to pay for it"

This is my view on it 

When something is "free" you don't have to pay for it.

Otherwise it is double up, because to me "open source" already implies you are allowed and thus free to use and change the source for yourself.

p.s. I know there is a fancy word to describe this but can't recall it at the moment.

[DiTBho]

(Open-Smartwatch)

for me, the Open-Smartwatch design looks like the last Suunto Core watch 

The Suunto Core costs 110 euro shipped(1), it's close-source, but it has the following specs
Altimeter
Barometer
Compass
Temperature
Storm alarm
Sunrise / sunset
Depth meter for snorkeling
Multiple watch, date and time functions
User-replaceable battery


The Open-Smartwatch by TTGO & Pauls_3d_Things is based on ESP32 (I think it's compatible with Arduino T-micro32), and it's interesting for me because it has WIFI and Bluetooth.

kind 50-60 euro on Aliexpress or something.

I won't use it, but it's a *very* interesting design and project 


edit:
(1) just a couple of weeks ago it cost 180 euro shipped.
Big discount!!!

[Nominal Animal]

When something is "free" you don't have to pay for it.

Otherwise it is double up, because to me "open source" already implies you are allowed and thus free to use and change the source for yourself.

No!

The umbrella term is "free and open source", where "free" refers to libre, without obligation to the end user, provided/obtained under copyright-based licensing terms that only apply to distribution (of the original and/or derivatives and/or combined works).

Open source does not imply "free"; neither "no cost" nor "no obligation".  It just means the source code of the software is provided; not necessarily under "libre" terms.  "Proprietary open source" may sound like an oxymoron, and is rarely used; but it means the source is provided to you under a strict proprietary contract.

In common use, "open source" is used as a shorter form of "free and open source", as it is usually understood to imply the latter.  But the terms themselves are historically (see GNU and RMS history in particular) well defined, only "lazy" vernacular use muddles the matter.

I've mentioned in other threads that I habitually use a variety of licenses, from CC0-1.0 (public domain dedication) to copyleft licenses like GPL to permissive licenses like MIT and BSD, to proprietary licenses, and have worked under non-disclosure agreements without any issues.  This copyright and licensing stuff is actually very straightforward, but unless you have a professional (lawyer specialized in copyrights) explain them to you (I did, I warmly recommend it!), they are very easy to misunderstand, especially for us technically-oriented people.

[golden_labels]

Also known as source-available licenses. Software version of greenwashing.

[pcprogrammer]

It is semantics I know, but to avoid confusion they could have stated it as

"The PineTime is a smartwatch based on free and open source technology."

[golden_labels]

To anybody accustomed to this term, the original description is unabiguous and conveys the right message. To everybody else your corrected version will remain unhelpful: they still do not know what “free” stands for and the message will be equally muddy. And I doubt the latter group is the target.

It is not absolute 100% free either. Which is also obvious to most readers understanding the idea.

[Nominal Animal]

The only way to ensure the terms would not be muddied and only correct and clear explanations exist, would require language policing.

The best we can do, is change as the language use changes, and do better ourselves (by not propagating muddled half-definitions or explanations). 

Dave's video from six years back, EEVblog #921, is an useful suggested solution for the combined software-hardware side of this, OSHW:

[DiTBho]

p.s.
guys, about "free as freedom", I just paid ~320 euro (shipping, customs fees, all included) to see the HDL source (Verilog) of a PCI-fpga interface.

OK, it includes the little board with a SpartanII-fpga on it, which is the best chip you want to use in your hobby projects because it's 5V tolerant, but frankly, I bought the kit mostly for the HDL-code, because PCI is complex and that code is a complete working example.


Included HDL-source:
- two CDroms, everything is BSD-model
- you have to buy the hardware to see the source code and doc
- you can not share sources or documentation in any form!
- you can modify the source-code as you wish, but ONLY for your personal purposes

I have already seen this working scheme several times. Last time with VxWorks sources (Windriver).

So, personally I think what we have behind these two "OpenSource" watches is a great thing