From: Andrew Stone <st...@toastedcircuits.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Subject: [Discuss] The institutionalization of OSHW
To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List <
disc...@lists.oshwa.org>
As I listened to the OSHW summit speakers, I felt a pretty disturbing trend
towards closing aspects of some products, and "yes-sirring" both real and
"fake" regulatory bodies (as opposed to reluctantly complying) by the
well-regarded members of our community. And then of course there were lots
of great presentations of cool stuff that completely disregarded all that.
Looks like some of us are growing up :-(. Did you feel that way?
Yesterday the Open Source Hardware Summit was held at Eyebeam in New York
City. While there was a lot of awesome projects, in this post I want to
write about a disturbing trend of some of the largest players.
Open Source Hardware
First, just to set the stage, as I'm sure everyone in the community knows,
MakerBot is closing some of the files in the Replicator 2. AFAIK what
portions exactly were not announced until the summit, and to credit Bre (or
cynically, to credit him for backpedaling), it turns out that only the
plans for the steel structure and the GUI will be closed. But once that
door gets opened...
This was not the only presentation on this topic... in fact there were
several talks presenting an attitude along the lines of: "Well, 99% of our
customers just change the software so as we explore business models, maybe
we'll just open source that...". For example, in the keynote speech (of
all places) Chis Anderson mentioned that some of his planes' extruded parts
are not open because nobody but knock-off fabricators have extruders.
Well, nobody except this guy who made a DIY extruder I guess. And
couldn't you print them in a Reprap?
Ok fine, I understand the need to discourage knock-offs. But if you do
this you are NOT 100% Open Source Hardware. You are trading the openness
of some aspects of your design for the ability to make a good profit on
your work, which you use to fund more cool projects! Its actually great in
many ways. You've rediscovered the motivation behind intellectual
property. But let's not lie about it. Let's be honest and let the
customers decide whether your product is open enough.
FCC Compliance
A bit later, a representative from Sparkfun stepped up to speak about FCC
compliance. He explained to us what he called the "good news": its
actually only about 1000 bucks to get tested (ignoring your time and effort
to get it done) if you are an "unintentional radiator" (that is you don't
use wireless). If you do, I may misremember but its 10k USD. And by the
way, kits, partial products, etc are not exempt so pay up! Also, amazingly
enough if you make 5+ items for your personal use, pay up. But 1-4 is
fine. Of course this is only for the USA. There's a similar but different
regulatory body in every other country.
A chilling effect settled over the crowd.
All of this was delivered in a happy cheery tone because as we learned,
"straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak, this guy previously worked
for the FCC for 5 years!
I can't resist a momentary troll: I'm imaging this guy running around the
OSHWA demo area on his mobile reporting us to his cronies in Washington.
Sorry Sparkfun, but you should not hire an ex-FCC guy to do the
FCC-compliance job. You should hire a protestor. And not just to prove a
point -- but because enthusiastic people tend to magnify their jobs.
Did you sit under that LED dome? -- turn it off -- it was made from 5
identical driver modules. How about those fabric artists and electric ink?
Turn 'em all off. And there was an amazing talk about testing
radioactivity levels in Japan after the nuclear disaster
http://summit.oshwa.org/humanitarian-open-source-hardware/. And not
surprisingly, it was discovered that the Japanese government was not
reporting these radiation levels. If this had happened in the USA, as far
as I can tell the FCC could have shut them down under the 5 unit rule. The
problem with a technicality is that it can and has been used to keep the
truth from the public.
While clearly some small oversight to ensure reasonable electronic
emissions is needed for mass consumer devices (say greater than 50k units)
the 5 unit rule (and many others) is clearly obsolete. After all, I can
get 10 PCBs from Seeedstudio for about 15 bucks.
You may roll your eyes a bit, but these sort of things really do have "a
chilling effect". In other words, an effect not instantly obvious but one
that is certainly dampening innovation in America. I would imagine that
the effect happens most especially in areas such as education or outreach.
People won't go the next step and bring these PCBs to a school, etc.
Why get fined 7000 bucks for volunteer work? And of course schools are
incredibly sensitive to possible litigation, since the cost comes straight
from the pockets of the townspeople who hire principals.
And even if in practice nobody will see your prototypes at home, let me
point out that it is a very dangerous social situation to have citizens
living in a constant state of breaking the law.
USB Connectivity
Next, we got to hear about USB from DangerousPrototypes. Ian at least
presented the information mostly neutrally. (summary: 2000 bucks to get
your company registered; nope nobody can sell you an ID). However, it is
clear in his opinion that squatting on an address is for hack-ups and
should only be done by raw (never sold) prototypes.
Ian, I guess you forgot about sit-ins as a method of protest.
At an OSHWA summit meeting, I would have preferred a more critical
treatment. I have done a lot of research on this, since my Lightuino 5
board uses a USB microprocessor. Everything presented is easily discovered
on the web. But unfortunately, the key issue was not addressed and barely
mentioned:
If you choose to squat (vid: 0xF055 FTW!) is there ANYTHING the USB
consortium can do about it?
Currently the answer seems to be no -- they have no legal control over
those particular bits in the USB protocol. In fact there seems to be no
mechanism to even gain such control (hooray!). And history seems to prove
this out; all that they have ever done is kicked companies out of the
consortium (in fact one such company is still selling VID/PIDs).
But if I was invited to take up ten minutes of 450 peoples' time, I would
have presented a legal opinion.
So, its getting pretty clear that the many of our most prominent OSHW
members and companies are growing up.
And let's be clear, I do not blame them for following these laws -- it is
important to be a productive member of the society you choose to live
within. But I blame them for following them enthusiastically. A person's
ability and proclivity to make things is literally as much a part of us as
is our hands. Similarly, economic theorists affirm that a person's right
to trade goods is fundamental to any society. Please do your part to
ensure these freedoms are not taken from us.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Tim Schmidt <timschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm willing to throw time, programming, and activism at this problem
> if we can collect a few additional hands.
I think we already have enough hands willing to do that, Tim. But nobody
has proposed good standards that everyone wants to follow yet. There's no
"apt-get" for things, and the deb format can't really be repurposed for
hardware. I don't think the ".things" zip file format is a good idea; it
has no metadata and just has STL files instead of CAD models. But at the
same time, skdb sort of overdid it a few years ago with the spec:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Tim Schmidt <timschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've previously proposed using and extending, and have used in my own
> projects, Josef Prusa's ThingDoc. Which provides a perfectly workable
> minimum feature set for mapping dependencies, source files, and other
> softwareisms onto this physical world. It even provides for assembly
> steps and such. Is it perfect? Far from it. But the problem you
> mention has been solved. Time to move up to the next layer.
I am looking at the README. It claims only:
"""
* BoM text file
* HTML documentation
* TeX documentation
* Wiki documentation (suitable for the reprap.org wiki)
* Dependency tree in text-mode and using GraphViz
"""
Before I puke over this, can you show me where the documentation is?
is there a spec?
Does the BOM refer to part numbers, or package names, or what?
What is the dependency tree being resolved against?
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tim Schmidt <timschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And as far as an OSHW definition goes, what's wrong with "all the
> information necessary to reproduce the device, including but not
> limited to the files which describe the device itself, software or
> firmware which runs on the device, and any software necessary for
> consuming said files."
> With the basic point being that it's not free unless we can distribute it.
> When you 'apt-get install reprap' or the like - we should install the
> reprap CAD files, but those files should depend on OpenSCAD, the
> Arduino IDE (in the case of the firmware files) and so on. If a file
> is saved in Solidworks format, we can't exactly apt-get that
> dependency. So it goes in a different repo akin to Debian's contribs
> repo (for packages which themselves are free, but which have non-free
> dependencies).
> In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think OSHW should
> just be packaged alongside our favorite applications in our favorite
> linux distributions. Packaging for Windows and Linux should use
> whatever package manager is popular on those platforms at the moment.
I thought like that once too, but then I realized that the dependency
relationships are a bit more complicated in hardware. You have other
levels of dependencies other than the default that debian provides
you, like for expressing physical tool dependencies and widgets that
you need for assembly versus situations where you're not the one doing
assembly, versus operational dependencies like 240V.
I also disagree with the idea of repurposing a format like .deb or
.rpm, because of the maintenance nightmare. With the required effort,
we should just do our own thing. Node did, after all! (Kidding,
kidding.)
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Tim Schmidt <timschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I'm behind a spotty 16kB/s connection in rural california.
> I'll not be doing your googling for you.
I didn't ask you to google for me, I asked you for links. Anyway, it
turns out that Josef changed his github account name, which is why all
the links are broken. thingdoc.org should be changed to redirect to
actual link.
Also, this looks like just documentation output, like HTML and TeX
markup. I don't think that's matching the features in the dot deb
format. :-(
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Tim Schmidt wrote:
> We're not packaging hardware. We're packaging proto-hardware. Which
> comes in the form of... Software.
I don't see the difference.
> So why don't software packages work again?
I never said packaging doesn't work for software. I did mention that
it's an incomplete solution, and repurposing rpm/deb is not the a
workable solution for completely deploying hardware.
> This is why a built-in metadata format like ThingDoc works so well.
Are you referring to its HTML/TeX format?
> Attempting to solve this problem by engineering it in it's entirety,
> in place, is unlikely to yield fruitful results (as I think you're
> familiar from skdb).
That doesn't mean TeX is the best way to package bytecode. I don't
want to read a billion pages of documentation just to install a fablab
or whatever.
From: Andrew Stone <st...@toastedcircuits.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Discuss] The institutionalization of OSHW
To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List <
disc...@lists.oshwa.org>
I hear your frustration Phillip. Its doubly hard to hear criticism from
people who are not wrestling with the problems you are dealing with. Like
I said in my OP I certainly respect pragmatic decisions and appreciate all
OSHW, even fragments! As I implied in my OP, if closing a small subset
eliminates 99% of the knockoffs but only 1% of the enhancers then maybe it
is a reasonable tradeoff.
But what really needs to be said about OSHW is that prior discussions were
along the lines of practicum -- that is "I want to open everything but the
tools do not allow me. When they do I will..."
At the summit it seemed we were hearing "its bad for business to open
everything".
This transformation in motivation needed to be addressed I think.
"Someone in this room will build a billion dollar business" was picked up
and repeated several times by other speakers as if that was what we were
all planning and striving for...
Was anyone considering the immense social and environmental impact OSHW has
already had by influencing the decision of an entire country to stop using
nuclear power? And by accurately charting the environmental effects of
industrial disasters? Or did those talks get ignored in the scramble stake
a claim in the OSHW gold rush? :-)
Yes Catarina, Michael, I hope people do think about it and vote with their
pocketbooks... but I think you may want to stop a moment and consider why
many votes aren't weighted by net worth.
And the rest of us may want to seriously consider releasing our
contributions with strong share-alike requirements...
Cheers!
Andrew
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:58 PM, phillip torrone <p...@oreilly.com> wrote:
> i usually try to say companies "making and selling open source hardware"
when i write about companies folks should support if they like to see more
oshw in the world. i don't think it's ever going to be possible to be a
100% open source hardware company and i'm also not sure 100% open source
hardware can exist for some people too.
> what we have is a desire to share and be open, more is happening, it's
good :)
> On Sep 28, 2012, at 11:51 PM, Michael James <
mich...@opensourcehardwarejunkies.com> wrote:
> > I am a bit confused when people say Open Source Hardware Company.
> > Any company can sell OSHW. The OSHW designation applies to devices not
business entities.
> > Radio Shack carries Open Source Hardware - good for them I say and for
OSHW.
> > If a company wants to sell open and close source - power to them. If
their customer base feels alienated they can (and will) vote with their
wallets.
> > -Michael
> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Catarina Mota <
catar...@openmaterials.org> wrote:
> > I'm seriously sleep deprived, so take this with a grain of salt :)
> > Perhaps we should stop using the expression "OSHW company." Otherwise,
we'll end up having to determine what percentage of a business's products
must be OHSW for that company to be considered open source. We don't need a
company certification process, not right now I think.
> > While I agree that some people behaved shamefully last week, let's keep
in mind that they're a handful of individuals. Yesterday we stuffed almost
500 people in a warehouse to discuss controversial issues and everyone (as
far as know) behaved beautifully. So much so that the Eyebeam team
complimented us on being unusually friendly, respectful and upbeat. Many
sponsors, speakers and attendees showed up early (some of them were 2 days
early) and, instead of taking a seat, rolled up their sleeves and started
deploying chairs and picking up trash - yup, we put CEOs on trash duty :)
The outpour of love and support in our inbox and twitter stream today has
been one of the most moving things I've experienced. So while we can't
condone rudeness and disrespect, we should also celebrate the majority that
is so kind and supportive.
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:04 PM, phillip torrone <p...@oreilly.com>
wrote:
> > 2 weeks ago i got the usual once-a-month "purity" email from some
random person saying "you're not open source because you use quickbooks, or
windows, or EAGLE" etc.. but now this week adafruit along with sparkfun is
back to being a "good example of an open source hardware" company.
> > i read your post and you say "Ok fine, I understand the need to
discourage knock-offs. But if you do this you are NOT 100% Open Source
Hardware." -
> > ok, but really, who is or isn't open source enough this week?
> > is sparkfun 100%, is adafruit 100%, what about EMSL? they have a kit
that's not OSHW, so does everyone else who i consider an oshw company. are
we pure enough?
> > our company statement, actually, limor's is "we're going to keep
shipping OSHW while everyone argues about open source hardware". we're
going to keep doing open source, we'll show that's an amazing cause and an
amazing business, smart people will want to join us.
> > last week the most vocal voices in the open source 3d printing
community didn't inspire anyone to want to join their cause, in fact a 3d
printer maker told me "wow, glad we never did (or will do open source).
that's the worst thing i think, people steering clear of open source
because of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't?
> > i really don't know what's next, but i'm thinking about. for now, i'm
really excited about the OSHWA, because they're a group of people that has
the mission to celebrate OSHW companies, i'd like to know i can work hard
and someone *else* is going to say "these folks are doing OSHW, support
them".
> > i'm going to do my best to get them members and help them celebrate
oshw.
> > join in :)
> > cheers,
> > pt
> > On Sep 28, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Stone <st...@toastedcircuits.com>
wrote:
> > As I listened to the OSHW summit speakers, I felt a pretty disturbing
trend towards closing aspects of some products, and "yes-sirring" both real
and "fake" regulatory bodies (as opposed to reluctantly complying) by the
well-regarded members of our community. And then of course there were lots
of great presentations of cool stuff that completely disregarded all that.
> > > Looks like some of us are growing up :-(. Did you feel that way?
Which country stopped using nuclear because of OSHW? That sounds very, very
strange.
On Sep 29, 2012 1:10 AM, "Bryan Bishop" <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Andrew Stone <st...@toastedcircuits.com>
> Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] The institutionalization of OSHW
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List <
> disc...@lists.oshwa.org>
> I hear your frustration Phillip. Its doubly hard to hear criticism from
> people who are not wrestling with the problems you are dealing with. Like
> I said in my OP I certainly respect pragmatic decisions and appreciate all
> OSHW, even fragments! As I implied in my OP, if closing a small subset
> eliminates 99% of the knockoffs but only 1% of the enhancers then maybe it
> is a reasonable tradeoff.
> But what really needs to be said about OSHW is that prior discussions were
> along the lines of practicum -- that is "I want to open everything but the
> tools do not allow me. When they do I will..."
> At the summit it seemed we were hearing "its bad for business to open
> everything".
> This transformation in motivation needed to be addressed I think.
> "Someone in this room will build a billion dollar business" was picked up
> and repeated several times by other speakers as if that was what we were
> all planning and striving for...
> Was anyone considering the immense social and environmental impact OSHW
> has already had by influencing the decision of an entire country to stop
> using nuclear power? And by accurately charting the environmental effects
> of industrial disasters? Or did those talks get ignored in the scramble
> stake a claim in the OSHW gold rush? :-)
> Yes Catarina, Michael, I hope people do think about it and vote with their
> pocketbooks... but I think you may want to stop a moment and consider why
> many votes aren't weighted by net worth.
> And the rest of us may want to seriously consider releasing our
> contributions with strong share-alike requirements...
> Cheers!
> Andrew
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:58 PM, phillip torrone <p...@oreilly.com> wrote:
> > i usually try to say companies "making and selling open source hardware"
> when i write about companies folks should support if they like to see more
> oshw in the world. i don't think it's ever going to be possible to be a
> 100% open source hardware company and i'm also not sure 100% open source
> hardware can exist for some people too.
> > what we have is a desire to share and be open, more is happening, it's
> good :)
> > On Sep 28, 2012, at 11:51 PM, Michael James <
> mich...@opensourcehardwarejunkies.com> wrote:
> > > I am a bit confused when people say Open Source Hardware Company.
> > > Any company can sell OSHW. The OSHW designation applies to devices
> not business entities.
> > > Radio Shack carries Open Source Hardware - good for them I say and for
> OSHW.
> > > If a company wants to sell open and close source - power to them. If
> their customer base feels alienated they can (and will) vote with their
> wallets.
> > > -Michael
> > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Catarina Mota <
> catar...@openmaterials.org> wrote:
> > > I'm seriously sleep deprived, so take this with a grain of salt :)
> > > Perhaps we should stop using the expression "OSHW company." Otherwise,
> we'll end up having to determine what percentage of a business's products
> must be OHSW for that company to be considered open source. We don't need a
> company certification process, not right now I think.
> > > While I agree that some people behaved shamefully last week, let's
> keep in mind that they're a handful of individuals. Yesterday we stuffed
> almost 500 people in a warehouse to discuss controversial issues and
> everyone (as far as know) behaved beautifully. So much so that the Eyebeam
> team complimented us on being unusually friendly, respectful and upbeat.
> Many sponsors, speakers and attendees showed up early (some of them were 2
> days early) and, instead of taking a seat, rolled up their sleeves and
> started deploying chairs and picking up trash - yup, we put CEOs on trash
> duty :) The outpour of love and support in our inbox and twitter stream
> today has been one of the most moving things I've experienced. So while we
> can't condone rudeness and disrespect, we should also celebrate the
> majority that is so kind and supportive.
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:04 PM, phillip torrone <p...@oreilly.com>
> wrote:
> > > 2 weeks ago i got the usual once-a-month "purity" email from some
> random person saying "you're not open source because you use quickbooks, or
> windows, or EAGLE" etc.. but now this week adafruit along with sparkfun is
> back to being a "good example of an open source hardware" company.
> > > i read your post and you say "Ok fine, I understand the need to
> discourage knock-offs. But if you do this you are NOT 100% Open Source
> Hardware." -
> > > ok, but really, who is or isn't open source enough this week?
> > > is sparkfun 100%, is adafruit 100%, what about EMSL? they have a kit
> that's not OSHW, so does everyone else who i consider an oshw company. are
> we pure enough?
> > > our company statement, actually, limor's is "we're going to keep
> shipping OSHW while everyone argues about open source hardware". we're
> going to keep doing open source, we'll show that's an amazing cause and an
> amazing business, smart people will want to join us.
> > > last week the most vocal voices in the open source 3d printing
> community didn't inspire anyone to want to join their cause, in fact a 3d
> printer maker told me "wow, glad we never did (or will do open source).
> that's the worst thing i think, people steering clear of open source
> because of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't?
> > > i really don't know what's next, but i'm thinking about. for now, i'm
> really excited about the OSHWA, because they're a group of people that has
> the mission to celebrate OSHW companies, i'd like to know i can work hard
> and someone *else* is going to say "these folks are doing OSHW, support
> them".
> > > i'm going to do my best to get them members and help them celebrate
> oshw.
> > > join in :)
> > > cheers,
> > > pt
> > > On Sep 28, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Stone <st...@toastedcircuits.com>
> wrote:
> > > As I listened to the OSHW summit speakers, I felt a pretty disturbing
> trend towards closing aspects of some products, and "yes-sirring" both real
> and "fake" regulatory bodies (as opposed to reluctantly complying) by the
> well-regarded members of our community. And then of course there were lots
> of great presentations of cool stuff that completely disregarded all that.
> > > > Looks like some of us are growing up :-(. Did you feel that way?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
*This was an excellent event, I had a great time there - and lot of great
and lively discussion with other manufacturers, hackers, and hobbyists.
The crowd was as diverse as I had hoped, and the environment seemed largely
productive to me. I look forward to next year's, and want to thank the
team for doing such a great job with it!
*= Politicizing OSHW* =
I'm gathering the impression that the expectation by certain people is that
all persons should engage in the production of open-source hardware with
social or political drivers in mind.
We are not all motivated by the same political or social goals, and some of
us produce open-source technologies (hardware and software) for less lofty
reasons:
- We expect that our customers should be able to service their own
equipment
- We expect that our customers should be able to make changes to their
equipment to better suit their needs, should they have the skills to do so
- We expect that by showing how today's technology is created, that the
people creating tomorrow's will be able to do so more efficiently, and the
envelope of ability will be expanded for all in our industry
We (and some others) make business decisions which are driven by these
decisions, to the best of our abilities. We have to consider the
well-being of our employees, our investors, our creditors, and our
community. We almost always want to avoid a race to the bottom, as this is
the effective death of most non-commodity industries. Competing to produce
purely on cost of labor is not why most of us are in the tech business, and
we have no interest in lowering the standard of living for our employees so
that some people may have product for (nearly) free.
*= Standards and Compliance =*
These standards are set by the citizens of the markets where they apply.
All, not some, not a few, all persons wishing to sell products to the
consumers in those markets must meet the minimum requirements for entry.
Whether it's FCC, CE, TuV, NIST, UL, etc. These were, in many cases,
created as a response to shady characters foisting low-quality products on
an un-suspecting market. There is much more at a minimum that companies
must do to sell in a market than pass these tests - consider that you must
provide a two-year warranty for any product that you sell in Europe.
That's more expensive in most cases than CE compliance.
Required compliance with applicable regulations are a barrier to entry, but
also an opportunity to design better products and understand the value and
market of your product better. Because we know that we have to have both
FCC and CE compliance with nearly every electronic product we make, we
design from the ground up to be compliant - this includes RoHS, designing
to mitigate outside influence of our devices, good noise reducing design,
etc. We understand the costs to bring our products to market better, and
have reduced re-uptake of failed product in the field, keeping our
customers happy and our long-term prices down.
Instead of trying to short-cut around consumer protection laws, perhaps its
better to address your problem more directly: how to non-sell enabling
non-products to hackers... I wouldn't confuse that with marketing and
selling to consumers.
*= Tone of Discussion =*
Perhaps it is the social or political drivers for some people which lead
them to speak to others in a certain way, but I don't see how some of the
negative tone I see on here is productive and good for the community in any
way. I've seen the following recently:
"I'm offended that you didn't share your designs using a tool I prefer."
"Before I puke all over your project, show me..."
I could continue on, but I don't personally feel like this sort of
discourse is good or encouraging for others. Some people seem to believe
that a whip is a great motivator, or perhaps they are obliged to have
things their way. Either way, that sort of tone does not a good,
constructive community make. While RMS has taught us that there is often a
need and room for unbending, unapologetic zealots, he has also shown us
that they largely end up living in echo chambers.
> We are not all motivated by the same political or social goals, and some
We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its software doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
> of us produce open-source technologies (hardware and software) for less
> lofty reasons:
> - We expect that our customers should be able to service their own
> equipment
> - We expect that our customers should be able to make changes to their
> equipment to better suit their needs, should they have the skills to do so
These are political opinions. They argue that people should be free to use the hardware that they own. Many hardware manufacturers would disagree and claim that they are simply acting in everyone's best economic interests.
> We (and some others) make business decisions which are driven by these
> decisions, to the best of our abilities. We have to consider the
> well-being of our employees, our investors, our creditors, and our
> community.
And some consumers will make purchasing decisions that are driven by their own political decisions. It would be economically irrational of them to privilege a company's interests above their own.
If people want to call their cool VC-funded proprietary hardware and software "Open Source" then the problem is not the people telling them that they are wrong.
I suggest appealing to the economic advantages of democratising access to hardware rather than fighting a losing battle to redefine "Open Source".
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 09/29/2012 03:43 PM, Chris Church wrote:
>> We are not all motivated by the same political or social goals, and some
> We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its software
> doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and
here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all files
be distributed in open-source formats, etc.
The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation is
"is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount of
traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one specific
company for failing to open-source every part which they sell. And, last I
checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they said it had
"open-source components."
of us produce open-source technologies (hardware and software) for less
> lofty reasons:
> - We expect that our customers should be able to service their own
> equipment
> - We expect that our customers should be able to make changes to their
> equipment to better suit their needs, should they have the skills to do so
These are political opinions. They argue that people should be free to use
> the hardware that they own. Many hardware manufacturers would disagree and
> claim that they are simply acting in everyone's best economic interests
I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a schematic
to aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get one for my car.
I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in that... But, to be
clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and bike-shedding all day: I
don't care whether society is bettered by the product being open or not, I
care whether or not the customer is better serviced by its being so.
And some consumers will make purchasing decisions that are driven by their
> own political decisions. It would be economically irrational of them to
> privilege a company's interests above their own.
And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not kid
ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation is that
a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically irrational
to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
> If people want to call their cool VC-funded proprietary hardware and
> software "Open Source" then the problem is not the people telling them that
> they are wrong.
I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this list,
for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of late.
Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company should be
tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product with a closed
part and an open part. That anything but 100% is not enough.
> I suggest appealing to the economic advantages of democratising access to
> hardware rather than fighting a losing battle to redefine "Open Source".
Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open," to
being "open and shared using x..."
From: Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeo...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [tt] [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: The institutionalization of OSHW
To: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com
Cc: t...@postbiota.org
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 09/29/2012 03:43 PM, Chris Church wrote:
>> We are not all motivated by the same political or social goals, and some
> We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its software
doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and
here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all files
be distributed in open-source formats, etc.
The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation is
"is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount of
traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one specific
company for failing to open-source every part which they sell. And, last I
checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they said it had
"open-source components."
> of us produce open-source technologies (hardware and software) for less
> lofty reasons:
> - We expect that our customers should be able to service their own
> equipment
> - We expect that our customers should be able to make changes to their
> equipment to better suit their needs, should they have the skills to do so
> These are political opinions. They argue that people should be free to
use the hardware that they own. Many hardware manufacturers would disagree
and claim that they are simply acting in everyone's best economic interests
I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a schematic
to aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get one for my car.
I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in that... But, to be
clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and bike-shedding all day: I
don't care whether society is bettered by the product being open or not, I
care whether or not the customer is better serviced by its being so.
> And some consumers will make purchasing decisions that are driven by
their own political decisions. It would be economically irrational of them
to privilege a company's interests above their own.
And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not kid
ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation is that
a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically irrational
to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
> If people want to call their cool VC-funded proprietary hardware and
software "Open Source" then the problem is not the people telling them that
they are wrong.
I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this list,
for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of late.
Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company should be
tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product with a closed
part and an open part. That anything but 100% is not enough.
> I suggest appealing to the economic advantages of democratising access to
hardware rather than fighting a losing battle to redefine "Open Source".
Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open," to
being "open and shared using x..."
Chris
---
Chris Church
Dynamic Perception, LLC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
> From: Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeo...@gmail.com
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org
> <mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote:
> > We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its
> software doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
> ... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
> hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
Yes it's yet another DFSG derivative so it's easy for people to transfer their knowledge to it from software, culture or data definitions based on the DFSG.
In particular, for something to be called Open Source, it cannot contain proprietary components.
> The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and
> here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all
> files be distributed in open-source formats, etc.
I was responding to the particular post.
But that sounds like a sensible idea. Vendor lock-in on formats is a well known problem for access and use of digital materials.
> The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation
> is "is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount
> of traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one
> specific company for failing to open-source every part which they sell.
They are not Open enough *by their own previously stated principles*, the principles that differentiated them and that made many of us their customers and proponents.
Without that differentiation there are other cheaper and better "almost open" options that I can buy from in future. Or I can bite the bullet and assemble the materials for a Free design myself. But in neither case is there any reason for me to continue with MakerBot.
> And, last I checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they
> said it had "open-source components."
Which is a change, and a disappointing one.
> I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
> different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a
> schematic to aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get
> one for my car. I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in
> that... But, to be clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and
> bike-shedding all day: I don't care whether society is bettered by the
> product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is better
> serviced by its being so.
That's why Open Source works so well. It doesn't, and I don't, care why someone does the right thing *as long as they do*.
Where they do the wrong thing, I'm not going to accept lectures on their special interests as a functional substitute for them doing the right thing.
> And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not
> kid ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation
> is that a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically
> irrational to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
I'm a customer.
> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
> open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this
> list, for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of
> late. Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company
> should be tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product
> with a closed part and an open part.
When they've built their reputation on Open Source, their reputation will be affected if they retreat from Open Source.
> That anything but 100% is not enough.
It isn't enough to call it Open Source.
> Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
> open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open,"
> to being "open and shared using x..."
I'm not sure how something can be open and not shared, or how introducing proprietary dependencies in designs makes them more Open, but as I say, that is not what I was responding to.
How far down the rabbit hole do the hair-splitting RMS folks go, especially
with OSHW, since the processers and gold mines and trains and airplanes all
part of those manufacturing processes are not open at all. Even if the
airplane tire was open, along with airplanes, would that democratize
transportation? In 50 or 100 years maybe. Oh, and the stepper motors and
keyboards and mice and......
Should all this knowledge be free and available? Have people thought how
development is incentivized in such an economy? Can an economy even exist
in that world?
On Sep 30, 2012 1:31 PM, "Rob Myers" <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
>> From: Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeo...@gmail.com
>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org
>> <mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote:
>> > We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its
>> software doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
>> ... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
>> hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
> Yes it's yet another DFSG derivative so it's easy for people to transfer
> their knowledge to it from software, culture or data definitions based on
> the DFSG.
> In particular, for something to be called Open Source, it cannot contain
> proprietary components.
> The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and
>> here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all
>> files be distributed in open-source formats, etc.
> I was responding to the particular post.
> But that sounds like a sensible idea. Vendor lock-in on formats is a well
> known problem for access and use of digital materials.
> The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation
>> is "is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount
>> of traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one
>> specific company for failing to open-source every part which they sell.
> They are not Open enough *by their own previously stated principles*, the
> principles that differentiated them and that made many of us their
> customers and proponents.
> Without that differentiation there are other cheaper and better "almost
> open" options that I can buy from in future. Or I can bite the bullet and
> assemble the materials for a Free design myself. But in neither case is
> there any reason for me to continue with MakerBot.
> And, last I checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they
>> said it had "open-source components."
> Which is a change, and a disappointing one.
> I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
>> different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a
>> schematic to aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get
>> one for my car. I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in
>> that... But, to be clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and
>> bike-shedding all day: I don't care whether society is bettered by the
>> product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is better
>> serviced by its being so.
> That's why Open Source works so well. It doesn't, and I don't, care why
> someone does the right thing *as long as they do*.
> Where they do the wrong thing, I'm not going to accept lectures on their
> special interests as a functional substitute for them doing the right thing.
> And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not
>> kid ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation
>> is that a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically
>> irrational to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
> I'm a customer.
> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
>> open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this
>> list, for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of
>> late. Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company
>> should be tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product
>> with a closed part and an open part.
> When they've built their reputation on Open Source, their reputation will
> be affected if they retreat from Open Source.
> That anything but 100% is not enough.
> It isn't enough to call it Open Source.
> Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
>> open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open,"
>> to being "open and shared using x..."
> I'm not sure how something can be open and not shared, or how introducing
> proprietary dependencies in designs makes them more Open, but as I say,
> that is not what I was responding to.
> - Rob.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@**googlegroups.com<openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<openmanufacturing%2Bunsubs cribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/openmanufacturing?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en>
> .
I think that much of FOSS in the 80's and 90's was more about reimplementing libraries that had been implemented 10 proprietary times before... it was about freeing the basic tools (hammer, nail, screwdriver) making it easer to build advanced stuff. None of this "democratizes" the final industry as you were suggesting -- it "democratizes" the pen-ultimate "maker" industry -- that is, anyone can make new tires for their car.
There is no economic issue with basic tool development since there is no intention to have an economy -- in fact the intention is explicitly to NOT have an economy to reduce the barrier to entry into derivative industries...
And we certainly are seeing OSHW used for this purpose with free electronic and 3d part libraries, low cost OSHW dev boards and lots more.
But we are also seeing FOSS and OSHW used to push the state of the art... for example the Linux package management is really the father of the "app store", and remains significantly better then MS windows installation alternatives. And on the hardware side, companies like DIY drones are trying to hit price/performance points which are orders of magnitude better then commercial/military alternatives.
Yesterday's economic theory would find this open, non-patented, R&D an impossible use. But somehow some instances are thriving. Its very interesting to consider why... but I won't do that here for brevity. But the massive NRE cost and rapid marketing of knock-offs paints a very scary picture for CEOs, especially ones that are not looking at the quarterly fish fry where the VCs turn the CEOs on the spit.
So this is where we see OSHW companies starting to fade back to at least partially-closed business models. But lets keep it real and remember that partially open remains MUCH better then the fully-closed alternative. And without knowing the specific details of each company, it is very difficult to be too critical. So I'm only asking these players to remember that 1 self-discovered, self-taught contributor is often worth hundreds of non-contributors... and the ability to re-print a broken part adds tremendous value to the device itself since parts can be impossible to source, and 5 to 20 times the raw part cost if it even is possible.
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:14:25 PM UTC-4, Nathan McCorkle wrote:
> How far down the rabbit hole do the hair-splitting RMS folks go, > especially with OSHW, since the processers and gold mines and trains and > airplanes all part of those manufacturing processes are not open at all. > Even if the airplane tire was open, along with airplanes, would that > democratize transportation? In 50 or 100 years maybe. Oh, and the stepper > motors and keyboards and mice and......
> Should all this knowledge be free and available? Have people thought how > development is incentivized in such an economy? Can an economy even exist > in that world? > On Sep 30, 2012 1:31 PM, "Rob Myers" <r...@robmyers.org <javascript:>> > wrote:
>> On 09/30/2012 04:46 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>>> From: Chris Church <thisdrone...@gmail.com <javascript:> >>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org<javascript:> >>> <mailto:r...@robmyers.org <javascript:>>> wrote:
>>> > We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its >>> software doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
>>> ... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source >>> hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
>> Yes it's yet another DFSG derivative so it's easy for people to transfer >> their knowledge to it from software, culture or data definitions based on >> the DFSG.
>> In particular, for something to be called Open Source, it cannot contain >> proprietary components.
>> The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and >>> here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all >>> files be distributed in open-source formats, etc.
>> I was responding to the particular post.
>> But that sounds like a sensible idea. Vendor lock-in on formats is a well >> known problem for access and use of digital materials.
>> The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation >>> is "is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount >>> of traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one >>> specific company for failing to open-source every part which they sell.
>> They are not Open enough *by their own previously stated principles*, the >> principles that differentiated them and that made many of us their >> customers and proponents.
>> Without that differentiation there are other cheaper and better "almost >> open" options that I can buy from in future. Or I can bite the bullet and >> assemble the materials for a Free design myself. But in neither case is >> there any reason for me to continue with MakerBot.
>> And, last I checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they >>> said it had "open-source components."
>> Which is a change, and a disappointing one.
>> I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is >>> different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a >>> schematic to aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get >>> one for my car. I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in >>> that... But, to be clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and >>> bike-shedding all day: I don't care whether society is bettered by the >>> product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is better >>> serviced by its being so.
>> That's why Open Source works so well. It doesn't, and I don't, care why >> someone does the right thing *as long as they do*.
>> Where they do the wrong thing, I'm not going to accept lectures on their >> special interests as a functional substitute for them doing the right thing.
>> And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not >>> kid ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation >>> is that a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically >>> irrational to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
>> I'm a customer.
>> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is >>> open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this >>> list, for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of >>> late. Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company >>> should be tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product >>> with a closed part and an open part.
>> When they've built their reputation on Open Source, their reputation will >> be affected if they retreat from Open Source.
>> That anything but 100% is not enough.
>> It isn't enough to call it Open Source.
>> Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define >>> open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open," >>> to being "open and shared using x..."
>> I'm not sure how something can be open and not shared, or how introducing >> proprietary dependencies in designs makes them more Open, but as I say, >> that is not what I was responding to.
>> - Rob.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Open Manufacturing" group. >> To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@**googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@** >> googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/openmanufacturing?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en> >> .
I don't think it is helpful to get fanatical about open source:
Arduino and RepRap use proprietary ATMEL chips. NOT OPEN! Who's got the multistep synthetic chemistry recipe to make FR4 fiberglass from scratch? NOT OPEN! Do you have the architectural drawings to be able to build a stepper motor? What grade magnets are in each motor and what grade steel is used to make the motor housing? NOT OPEN!
In my mind those types of questions don't actually matter. Open source is not about "the ability to do absolutely everything from scratch at home".
Open source means seeing everyone in the world as your peer instead of your customer. It's a philosophy, not a checkbox.
The benefits to making an open source product do affect the bottom line -- with RepRap companies you get free 24-hr tech support (viz. RepRap IRC and RepRap wiki) and free R&D from the community (RepRap resolution continues to improve while costs are also coming down thanks to tinkerers all over the world). Organically uniting around common conventions and technologies builds a vibrant community that I am proud to be a part of. I believe it is the "free" tech support and "free" R&D that will keep open source hardware projects around for a looooong time since they make it easy to start a company. These are good things.
> I think that much of FOSS in the 80's and 90's was more about reimplementing libraries that had been implemented 10 proprietary times before... it was about freeing the basic tools (hammer, nail, screwdriver) making it easer to build advanced stuff. None of this "democratizes" the final industry as you were suggesting -- it "democratizes" the pen-ultimate "maker" industry -- that is, anyone can make new tires for their car.
> There is no economic issue with basic tool development since there is no intention to have an economy -- in fact the intention is explicitly to NOT have an economy to reduce the barrier to entry into derivative industries...
> And we certainly are seeing OSHW used for this purpose with free electronic and 3d part libraries, low cost OSHW dev boards and lots more.
> But we are also seeing FOSS and OSHW used to push the state of the art... for example the Linux package management is really the father of the "app store", and remains significantly better then MS windows installation alternatives. And on the hardware side, companies like DIY drones are trying to hit price/performance points which are orders of magnitude better then commercial/military alternatives.
> Yesterday's economic theory would find this open, non-patented, R&D an impossible use. But somehow some instances are thriving. Its very interesting to consider why... but I won't do that here for brevity. But the massive NRE cost and rapid marketing of knock-offs paints a very scary picture for CEOs, especially ones that are not looking at the quarterly fish fry where the VCs turn the CEOs on the spit.
> So this is where we see OSHW companies starting to fade back to at least partially-closed business models. But lets keep it real and remember that partially open remains MUCH better then the fully-closed alternative. And without knowing the specific details of each company, it is very difficult to be too critical. So I'm only asking these players to remember that 1 self-discovered, self-taught contributor is often worth hundreds of non-contributors... and the ability to re-print a broken part adds tremendous value to the device itself since parts can be impossible to source, and 5 to 20 times the raw part cost if it even is possible.
> Cheers!
> Andrew
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How far down the rabbit hole do the hair-splitting RMS folks go, especially with OSHW, since the processers and gold mines and trains and airplanes all part of those manufacturing processes are not open at all. Even if the airplane tire was open, along with airplanes, would that democratize transportation? In 50 or 100 years maybe. Oh, and the stepper motors and keyboards and mice and......
> Should all this knowledge be free and available? Have people thought how development is incentivized in such an economy? Can an economy even exist in that world?
> On Sep 30, 2012 1:31 PM, "Rob Myers" <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 09/30/2012 04:46 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> From: Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeo...@gmail.com
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org
> <mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote:
> > We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its
> software doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
> ... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
> hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
> Yes it's yet another DFSG derivative so it's easy for people to transfer their knowledge to it from software, culture or data definitions based on the DFSG.
> In particular, for something to be called Open Source, it cannot contain proprietary components.
> The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and
> here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all
> files be distributed in open-source formats, etc.
> I was responding to the particular post.
> But that sounds like a sensible idea. Vendor lock-in on formats is a well known problem for access and use of digital materials.
> The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation
> is "is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount
> of traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one
> specific company for failing to open-source every part which they sell.
> They are not Open enough *by their own previously stated principles*, the principles that differentiated them and that made many of us their customers and proponents.
> Without that differentiation there are other cheaper and better "almost open" options that I can buy from in future. Or I can bite the bullet and assemble the materials for a Free design myself. But in neither case is there any reason for me to continue with MakerBot.
> And, last I checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they
> said it had "open-source components."
> Which is a change, and a disappointing one.
> I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
> different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a
> schematic to aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get
> one for my car. I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in
> that... But, to be clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and
> bike-shedding all day: I don't care whether society is bettered by the
> product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is better
> serviced by its being so.
> That's why Open Source works so well. It doesn't, and I don't, care why someone does the right thing *as long as they do*.
> Where they do the wrong thing, I'm not going to accept lectures on their special interests as a functional substitute for them doing the right thing.
> And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not
> kid ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation
> is that a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically
> irrational to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
> I'm a customer.
> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
> open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this
> list, for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of
> late. Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company
> should be tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product
> with a closed part and an open part.
> When they've built their reputation on Open Source, their reputation will be affected if they retreat from Open Source.
> That anything but 100% is not enough.
> It isn't enough to call it Open Source.
> Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
> open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open,"
> to being "open and shared using x..."
> I'm not sure how something can be open and not shared, or how introducing proprietary dependencies in designs makes them more Open, but as I say, that is not what I was responding to.
> - Rob.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Andrew Stone wrote:
> I think that much of FOSS in the 80's and 90's was more about reimplementing
> libraries that had been implemented 10 proprietary times before... it was
> about freeing the basic tools (hammer, nail, screwdriver) making it easer to
> build advanced stuff.
Off-topic, but.. we haven't really done that for hardware I think. The
problem is that if we standardize on a "GNU" distribution of hardware,
it just really increases the cost of getting started - like a "GNU"
(hardware) version of the basic table saw, etc The reason this would
be theoretically nice is that it's then easy to just list which exact
things you need in a bill of materials. I mean, the alternative is
standardizing on something like the Sears toolset hah (or just
tiptoeing around tool differences).
@Jordan, all of the "not open" items you mention are replaceable with
similar items from multiple vendors -- even the chips if you can port
software. So these are essentially the "raw materials" for the device.
Yes, it is an interesting goal to push these raw materials to be as
primitive as possible... but I agree that this is not necessary for OSHW.
This "complex raw material" is fundamentally different then (for example)
the 0 or single source "littlebits" connectors which currently make it
impossible and illegal to make your own LB modules:
http://littlebits.cc/forum/discussion/17/littlebits-connectors/p1. But
FYI, I still bought a littleBits starter set at the Maker Faire this
weekend!
@Bryan, I think you are looking around for a software solution for a
hardware problem. But in fact we do have this toolkit; its the Arduino
(and other uP breakouts), and all of the OSHW breakout boards and FOSS SW
drivers for practically any sensor, actuator, or communications medium you
can imagine... (Sure what you envision could help, but don't ignore what
we do have thanks to Sparkfun, Adafruit and many individuals)
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Andrew Stone wrote:
> > I think that much of FOSS in the 80's and 90's was more about
> reimplementing
> > libraries that had been implemented 10 proprietary times before... it was
> > about freeing the basic tools (hammer, nail, screwdriver) making it
> easer to
> > build advanced stuff.
> Off-topic, but.. we haven't really done that for hardware I think. The
> problem is that if we standardize on a "GNU" distribution of hardware,
> it just really increases the cost of getting started - like a "GNU"
> (hardware) version of the basic table saw, etc The reason this would
> be theoretically nice is that it's then easy to just list which exact
> things you need in a bill of materials. I mean, the alternative is
> standardizing on something like the Sears toolset hah (or just
> tiptoeing around tool differences).
