Received: by 10.43.8.201 with SMTP id ot9mr7428971icb.10.1349019969170; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.42.73.70 with SMTP id r6ls6720802icj.7.gmail; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.169.35 with SMTP id ab3mr3523808igc.1.1349019967276; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.169.35 with SMTP id ab3mr3523806igc.1.1349019967255; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rf8si629948igb.2.2012.09.30.08.46.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kanz...@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.44; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kanz...@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kanz...@gmail.com; dkim=pass header...@gmail.com Received: by oagn5 with SMTP id n5so5260254oag.31 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=/2uMqZvYkRLiLbSjTmcyLwULDGrJ6E38HLIx5abPOEM=; b=x6EjTSul2G/8rCrcLgGFaZY7C/WvKfXzCCYLz4gHUNSqAuduXdeNai47FyxL7JorW3 m7gvMubGuTfVlX8YsL59976OUD9tRfNqiK3ixVaVzoT5veuLazC/+n4D/j+vy3p0aFZ5 aoHIe8TZh0MGIx6x42snwSxu+iwQiZCzVRO98/G7wDNdljzBxykL9UsRJvqpaWxTJIKE 90pGmly69EsAJd1jzlvESnpRVp2hACBvghIxjCBF17xqYp3w2HHIPXnTBFssNE1vn3pY wfx+JZHVxS2T8wT7QzaUu+iU00VW4BAM7b6ajDp+AXWsKJj//FZvDdXqDii+oqvRHiDA Tg5A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.75.33 with SMTP id z1mr10034582obv.9.1349019966845; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.10.130 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:46:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References:

<05F75A29-A2B0-4637-97B6-B5F1ACC09...@oreilly.com>

<50683C98.2070...@robmyers.org> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:46:06 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Fwd: The institutionalization of OSHW From: Bryan Bishop To: Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List , diybio , Open Manufacturing , Rob Myers , Chris Church Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93994e7eb318c04caed2fef --14dae93994e7eb318c04caed2fef Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 From: Chris Church 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 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. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --14dae93994e7eb318c04caed2fef Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: tt@postbio= ta.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, th= ough. 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-s= ource hardware. =A0As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

The only talk of re-definitio= n 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 for= mats, etc.

The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation= is "is company X open-source enough." =A0The 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= . =A0And, last I checked, they didn't call that product "open-sour= ce," they said it had "open-source components."

> of us produce open-source technologies (hardware and software) for= less
> lofty reasons:
>
> =A0 - We expect that our custo= mers should be able to service their own
> equipment
> =A0 - 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 d= o so

> These are political opinions. They argue that people s= hould be free to use the hardware that they own. Many hardware manufacturer= s would disagree and claim that they are simply acting in everyone's be= st economic interests

I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for = them is different. =A0It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a s= chematic to aid in the continuing of its operation. =A0I still can get one = for my car. I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in tha= t... =A0But, to be clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and bike-s= hedding all day: I don't care whether society is bettered by the produc= t 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 dri= ven by their own political decisions. It would be economically irrational o= f them to privilege a company's interests above their own.

And the customers shall vote with their wallet. =A0Of course, let's not= kid ourselves. =A0For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation i= s that a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically irr= ational to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
=A0
>
> 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 anyon= e here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is open-source. =A0I hav= en'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. =A0Instead, there has b= een a lot of talk about whether a company should be tarnished should they m= ake a decision to produce a product with a closed part and an open part. = =A0That anything but 100% is not enough.
=A0
>
> I suggest appealing to the economic advantages of democ= ratising access to hardware rather than fighting a losing battle to redefin= e "Open Source".

Again, I will re-state, the only disc= ussion as of late to re-define open-source, is to further ratchet it down b= eyond 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@google= groups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com= /group/openmanufacturing?hl=3Den.

--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.= org/
1 512 203 0507
--14dae93994e7eb318c04caed2fef--