Fwd: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 12, 2011, 2:40:53 PM8/12/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brandon Stafford <bra...@rascalmicro.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:38 PM
Subject: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org, upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org


Hi all,

It seemed like the open source hardware logo needed a home, so I made it one: oshwlogo.com.

Please publicize this on your blog/twitter/gramophone/etc. I'm happy to receive any new formats that aren't already represented, either via email or via Github pull requests. Also, I'd like to make clear that I will happily turn responsibility for the logo, as well as the domain, over to the "Open Source Hardware Foundation," or similar entity, should one arise.

Thanks to all the folks who have created different formats so far-- from the response I've gotten so far, people definitely appreciate your work.

Cheers,
Brandon
--
Brandon Stafford
Rascal Micro: small computers for art and science
Somerville, MA, USA


_______________________________________________
updates mailing list
upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org
http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/listinfo.cgi/updates-openhardwaresummit.org




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

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 12, 2011, 6:35:17 PM8/12/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OH Definition] [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org


I'm disappointed in the movement toward using the name "Open Source Hardware", which implicitly reserves "Open Hardware" for something with fewer rights. Really not a good idea.

I work with groups like TAPR that have been developing Open Hardware for some years now. We have Open Hardware on ARISSAT in earth orbit at the moment. We aren't planning to change what we call it. For now, we'll continue using the older version of the logo that just says "Open Hardware".

   Thanks

   Bruce

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 12, 2011, 9:09:43 PM8/12/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
Date: 2011/8/12
Subject: Re: [OH Definition] [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: Andrew Stone <g.andre...@gmail.com>
Cc: defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org


On 08/12/2011 03:24 PM, Andrew Stone wrote:
Hi Bruce,

Don't you remember the days when "Open Hardware" meant that the registers were documented?  It meant that you were invited to program the hardware, not produce it yourself.
Yes, I created that promotion. I turned it over to a non-profit who managed to sink the campaign so completely that they lost its domain, and it was used by a bling merchant whose black-hat SEO guy wanted the residual links. I recovered the domain several years later and am presently using it for what we have more recently referred to as Open Hardware.


The distinction is still quite relevant today.  What terminology would you use for the difference between an android phone (you don't even have to use android) and an i-phone?  Or between the WRT-54GL and "closed" home router gateways?
It actually is not the case that any of that hardware would have passed the Open Hardware certification program that we operated back then. Today, I'd call that stuff "publicly documented", to the extent that it is, which is incomplete. Microsoft recently came up with their own name for such things, which is "Open Surface". This was in someone's keynote at OSCON, I hear. The only requirement is a documented API.


We can't refuse to name something because we would prefer it not exist.
Oh, we're not. There is an existing organization that campaigns for a spectrum of rights where the only rights in common are the right to read, and the right to non-commercially copy. It's called Creative Commons.

CC is a good fit for all of the "Educational Use Only" hardware designs. TAPR has a "Non-Commercial Hardware License" and an "Open Hardware License", which I think is pretty clear. Neither CC nor TAPR make the mistake of calling educational-use-only stuff "Open".

And not refusing to name something doesn't mean that we have to put our energy or resources into that thing, or even get out of its way.

Or is your comment about it not being a good idea because you are concerned that legally someone could advertise something as "open hardware" but not publish the design because we chose the term "Open Source Hardware"?  I think that given that the open hardware term is pre-existing we can't legally co-opt it anyway so that option will always exist.
I explored this in great depth as co-founder of the Open Source campaign, in which we achieved excellent public perception of the meaning of a term without having legal control over it. It's "Open Source". Some people call it "Open Source Software", but that's redundant.


And I do not think the term awkward.  I think that the "source" in "source code" means the original (i.e not object or obfuscated) and the "code" part means software.  So Open Source Hardware does parse.
:-)

So, I'm of two minds here. The computer scientist can see why you would care that something parses, and understands the attraction of semantic hierarchies in which Open Source Hardware is a subset of Open Hardware is a subset of Hardware. And this is excellently communicable to the subset of the Human Race who has that technical, hierarchical, mindset.

But I actually went to communication arts school. The part of me which received formal training in marketing, advertising, film-making,  and broadcasting is more concerned with telling people stories. In particular, stories that most of the people in the world can understand, that they will remember, and that they will act upon.

That side of me is thinking things like "keep it simple, silly" and "don't dilute your own campaign to make room for what you're campaigning against".

    Thanks

    Bruce





_______________________________________________
definition mailing list
defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org
http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/listinfo.cgi/definition-openhardwaresummit.org

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 14, 2011, 1:53:31 PM8/14/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Stone <g.andre...@gmail.com>
Date: 2011/8/14
Subject: Re: [OH Definition] [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
Cc: defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org


Hi Bruce,

These are all good points and I can't authoritatively comment on the danger of creating an identity around a phrase that one does not control since IANAL.  But it seems a bit dangerous to me.

But I think that my main concern is that you could actually have "open source hardware" that is not "open hardware" because hardware is not inherently modifiable like software.  What I mean is that someone could create a PCB (and release the design files) that does not have any reasonable means to update its firmware in the field.  Now of course someone could modify that PCB and get the modified version made and assembled.  But this could be made impractical for the individual if the PCB has 12 layers, $10k a seat layout software, and 1000 pin BGA parts.

But I'm glad you responded because it has clarified my thinking on the matter.  I've been trying (I start writing, it gets too long & I give up) to write a license for what I can an "Open Device".  I see now that it rests on 3 legal footings, Open Source, Open Hardware (in the sense that it is both possible and encouraged to write your own software for it), and Open Source Hardware.

Next I want to throw in a viral-style restriction with one qualification; if you (or subsidiaries etc) own one of the other footings the viral license applies, but if you don't own it there is an exemption.  For example, a person who did not work for HP could run the software on his HP laptop without having to release the design files for the laptop.  But HP cannot do so since they own the design files.  They must release their laptop design files to run the software.  So for software, the license sort of "reduces" to GPL if you run it on hardware you don't own.  This makes the license more universally usable.  The same would apply to software.  You can run any-licensed software on the "open device" if you don't hold copyright to that software.  But if you do hold copyright, you must release it under the "open device license".

Finally, one protection for the manufacturer; once you modify any aspect, hardware, software, whatever, you have created a different product not produced by the originator.  So all warranties, expressed or implied must be backed by you not some upstream manufacturer.

I feel that this kind of license gets us to the point where many consumer appliances may actually allow modification (both hardware and software), in a manner similar to what occurred with the WRT54-GL in software.  This assumes of course that enough software is licensed under it that it becomes more cost-effective for companies to use that software (with its restrictions) than to do it themselves.

Cheers!
Andrew

Triffid Hunter

unread,
Aug 14, 2011, 9:45:30 PM8/14/11
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com, Bryan Bishop
> Next I want to throw in a viral-style restriction with one qualification; if
> you (or subsidiaries etc) own one of the other footings the viral license
> applies, but if you don't own it there is an exemption.  For example, a
> person who did not work for HP could run the software on his HP laptop
> without having to release the design files for the laptop.  But HP cannot do
> so since they own the design files.  They must release their laptop design
> files to run the software.  So for software, the license sort of "reduces"
> to GPL if you run it on hardware you don't own.

So what happens when (for example) HP Laptops Pty Ltd makes the
hardware, and HP Software Support Pty Ltd develops the software, and
neither 'owns' the other, rather they're both owned by some umbrella
company that had no involvement in either hardware or software? Or
what if legally, they're completely independent and simply license the
trademark HP?

Many large companies are already structured like this.

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 14, 2011, 9:57:33 PM8/14/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
Date: 2011/8/14
Subject: Re: [OH Definition] [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: Andrew Stone <g.andre...@gmail.com>
Cc: defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org


On 08/14/2011 10:47 AM, Andrew Stone wrote:
Hi Bruce,

These are all good points and I can't authoritatively comment on the danger of creating an identity around a phrase that one does not control since IANAL.  But it seems a bit dangerous to me.
It's moot, since you're not going to be able to trademark any of the names being considered at the moment. Trademark isn't that hard to learn, you don't really need to be a lawyer.


But I think that my main concern is that you could actually have "open source hardware" that is not "open hardware" because hardware is not inherently modifiable like software.  What I mean is that someone could create a PCB (and release the design files) that does not have any reasonable means to update its firmware in the field.  Now of course someone could modify that PCB and get the modified version made and assembled.  But this could be made impractical for the individual if the PCB has 12 layers, $10k a seat layout software, and 1000 pin BGA parts.
The old form of Open Hardware didn't require that the platform be internally reprogrammable. There were always firmware chips below the register level that we could not touch. We don't currently have any formal name for embedded devices that can be reflashed. Mostly we just say they are hackable.

Lots of folks make designs that are hard to repair or extend once built, whether they are open or closed. The most we can hope for is that people use the power of having a modifiable design to fix those things.

Everybody is going to have a competence level that can be a barrier. For many people it might be a stretch to assemble the PVC pipe and bend the wire for that Gray-Hoverman antenna design that's under GPL3. Part of the fun of Open Hardware is that we can help to raise their competence level.

So, I am not seeing that we need to trip over this distinction.


But I'm glad you responded because it has clarified my thinking on the matter.  I've been trying (I start writing, it gets too long & I give up) to write a license for what I can an "Open Device".  I see now that it rests on 3 legal footings, Open Source, Open Hardware (in the sense that it is both possible and encouraged to write your own software for it), and Open Source Hardware.
If you ever get far enough, working with a lawyer is really important. The non-lawyer-crafted licenses have caused us harm. We got a really bad court precedent that would have harmed Open Source, and bankrupted an innocent Open Source developer, due in part to Larry Wall's work on Artistic License 1. I had to write expert testimony for the appeal. Fortunately, we reversed the lower court's finding on appeal.


Next I want to throw in a viral-style restriction with one qualification; if you (or subsidiaries etc) own one of the other footings the viral license applies, but if you don't own it there is an exemption.  For example, a person who did not work for HP could run the software on his HP laptop without having to release the design files for the laptop.  But HP cannot do so since they own the design files.  They must release their laptop design files to run the software.  So for software, the license sort of "reduces" to GPL if you run it on hardware you don't own.  This makes the license more universally usable.  The same would apply to software.  You can run any-licensed software on the "open device" if you don't hold copyright to that software.  But if you do hold copyright, you must release it under the "open device license".
You could probably make it the case that HP would never touch your licensed designs and software. It would be much more difficult to create a license that would provide HP with an economic inducement to use it, and that would cause them to share.

See http://wiki.openhardware.org/Hardware_Isn%27t_Generally_Copyrightable
This creates significant problems for enforcing hardware licenses and means that reciprocal licensing of schematic designs is mostly fantasy.

In general, we in the "Free" camp don't want to take away rights that people have by default, only give them rights that they would not otherwise have. So, we refrain from using contractual restrictions and instead we only license rights. I am not holding out much hope that you can do what you want without contractual restrictions.

Rearding a book or two about copyright, patent, and contract would be a good idea if you ever want to make this happen. But I'm not sure it would work even then.

    Thanks

    Bruce

_______________________________________________
definition mailing list
defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org
http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/listinfo.cgi/definition-openhardwaresummit.org

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 16, 2011, 9:39:18 AM8/16/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Javier Serrano <Javier....@cern.ch>
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OH Definition] [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
Cc: defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org


On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 11:38 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> See http://wiki.openhardware.org/Hardware_Isn%

> 27t_Generally_Copyrightable
> This creates significant problems for enforcing hardware licenses and
> means that reciprocal licensing of schematic designs is mostly
> fantasy.

We had a discussion on a similar topic not long ago in the CERN OHL
mailing list. FWIW, Lego seem to have been able to protect some of their
designs exclusively with copyright:
http://lists.ohwr.org/sympa/arc/cernohl/2011-08/msg00002.html
I am not an expert in this domain, I just thought I'd point this case
out for completeness.

Cheers,

Javier

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 16, 2011, 10:45:59 AM8/16/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [OH Definition] [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: Javier Serrano <Javier....@cern.ch>
Cc: defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org



On 08/16/2011 06:33 AM, Javier Serrano wrote:
I am not an expert in this domain, I just thought I'd point this case out for completeness.
It's too bad I can't read Chinese, not to mention Legal Chinese.

There are a number of abuses of the law that are based, mostly, on the fact that the abuser has so much money that they can mire the other side in court for a long time and bankrupt them regardless of the merit of the case. So, you see a lot of things like companies licensing patents that aren't really inventions, because they're too expensive to fight.

We don't just have to stick to the law. We have to stick to "little guy" law, because even with organizations like Software Freedom Conservancy we can't fight cases like the large corporations. SFC has one full-time employee. So, while Intel could enforce "Inside", without "Intel", as a trademark infringement, and Lego might get a block cloner to back off, we don't have a real possibility of doing those things.

   Thanks

   Bruce

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 18, 2011, 5:59:56 PM8/18/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <br...@perens.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: Andrew Stone <g.andre...@gmail.com>
Cc: upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org, defin...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org


I assert that there is a movement. A movement does not need a coherent
organization following a single leadership. There are, indisputably, a lot
of folks going in approximately the same direction. This is as it was with
Free Software and Open Source, and none of the folks in there ever had to
do what Richard Stallman or I said. We just said things that would
interest people and hoped they came along.

I am dubious that the movement started when some of the folks here think
it did. We've been making Open Hardware for a long time before the summit,
Adafruit, etc. We can, for example, look at Ettus Research work, which is
all GPLed for quite a few years now. Matt was working with GNURadio and
TAPR when he formed his company. Surely there are other, earlier,
examples.

I don't like the hyphen either, but am also unwilling to abandon the idea
that "Open Hardware" is in some way not the same thing as "Open-Source
Hardware" and that one has to further qualify the "Open".

I explained last week or so why it's a bad idea to lengthen names used to
market to neophytes.

IAdafruit wants to refer to their own stuff as "Open-Source Hardware" they
can do so. I'm going to continue to promote the more global campaign as
Open Hardware, and hope a lot of people will join me in that.

Thanks

Bruce

> I totally disagree that we are a "movement".  We are more like a shuffle.
> Yeah... like a drunken shuffle.  So I guess Phillip, although we have
> never
> met, we must now part forever.  I shall beat upon your USB-tiny ISP
> programmer with my shoe and use old make mags to light my BBQ grill...
>
> And what are you doing putting that dash between open and source!
> Goddammit
> it people won't understand that we are in the SAME drunken shuffle because
> I
> absolutely REFUSE to use the dash!
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers!
> Andrew
>
> P.S. Very sorry to have significantly aided the first
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM, phillip torrone <p...@oreilly.com> wrote:
>
>> >> "open-source hardware" is a term that we can (and many of us do) use
>> to
>> refer to sharing the designs for the hardware itself - and we can
>> publicize
>> and defend that meaning in a way that explains and disseminates our
>> practice.
>>
>> 100% agree with david - just to add more encouragement if it's needed,
>> limor and i (adafruit) are committed to using "open-source hardware" as
>> the
>> specific, and now well-defined name, for this movement.
>>
>> cheers,
>> pt
>>
>>
>> On Aug 18, 2011, at 4:06 PM, David A. Mellis wrote:
>> > I think we share the same core values and practices, so I don't want
>> to
>> spend too much time debating this.  Also, I think the specific choice of
>> a
>> phrase is less important than having one, being clear about its meaning,
>> and
>> using it widely and correctly.
>> >
>> > To me, therefore, "open-source hardware" suits our purposes better
>> than
>> "open hardware" because it's easier to pin down and claim for our own.
>> The
>> latter seems to have many legitimate uses besides referring to hardware
>> for
>> which the original design files are available.  For example, devices
>> with
>> open-source firmware or even just documented interfaces seem truly
>> "open" in
>> a way that entirely proprietary devices aren't.  I wouldn't feel
>> comfortable
>> telling someone that something isn't "open hardware" because only the
>> firmware is open-source, not the hardware design.
>> >
>> > Yes, "open" is misused and overused - and that's unfortunate.  But I
>> think it also makes the word too vague and too diluted of meaning for us
>> to
>> reclaim for our specific practice.  In contrast, "open-source hardware"
>> is a
>> term that we can (and many of us do) use to refer to sharing the designs
>> for
>> the hardware itself - and we can publicize and defend that meaning in a
>> way
>> that explains and disseminates our practice.
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> > On Aug 18, 2011, at 3:15 PM, br...@perens.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not everyone thinks it's a good idea. Check discussion of the last
>> week
>> or
>> >> two.
>> >>> I hate to keep harping on this, but can we change these to
>> "Open-Source
>> >>> Hardware"?  That's what the definition they refer to is defining,
>> after
>> >>> all.
>> >>>
>> >>> David

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 19, 2011, 11:54:42 AM8/19/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
this one is cool

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Carrier <dcar...@parallax.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: updates <upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org>


We will be using the logo on a bunch of products that we will be shipping to RadioShack.  (See: http://hackaday.com/2011/08/19/meet-radio-shacks-new-parallax-lineup/)  I believe that the deadline to send the packaging out to print is today, but if you can reach a consensus for "open hardware" vs. "open source hardware" on the logo, I might be able to get an updated version on the package.  As far as I know, this is the first time that the logo will appear in retail packaging, and the first order is for tens of thousands of products, so whatever we send out to print may be sticking around for a while.

Thank you,
David Carrier
Parallax Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: updates...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org on behalf of phillip torrone
Sent: Fri 8/19/2011 8:17 AM
To: updates
Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository

hi chris!

for space saving i've seen folks just use the logo and/or OSHW
http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10701

what javier said is how we feel about it too...  "open source hardware" for the definition and formal settings but "open hardware" perfectly acceptable in other cases and not frowned upon".

cheers,
pt

On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Drone.v2 wrote:

> I realize that I'm new to the group, and this is really my first interaction on the mailing list, but I did want to chime in:
>
> I agree that it is unlikely that the average person differentiates so heavily between "open" and "open-source".  I'm not sure that anyone would think that a hardware product that happened to have an API, with no source code, no schematics, and no documentation of the hardware its self as "open" in any meaningful way - so trying to differentiate from that in name may be an effort of limited utility.
>
> One of the nice things I found recently about "open hardware" instead of "open-source hardware" was when working on a 1.5"x1.5" board, trying to find a place to put the logo and text - I could only fit "open hardware" in a clean area, adding "source" would've required making the text so small as to un-(readable|printable).
>
> So, I too would throw my hat in the "either is ok," camp - for what value that holds.
>
> !c
>
> Chris Church
> dynamic perception / openmoco
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:19 PM, ayah bdeir <ay...@littlebits.cc> wrote:
> very well said Javier.
>
> This is the most productive approach, and the one that takes into account the realities we live in. People constantly drop the "source" and it doesnt belittle the movement at all. I really wish we would quit splitting hairs and move forward to the bigger battle we are trying to wage (meaning the one against patent trolls and IP obsessed companies etc..)
>
> thanks
> ayah
>
>
>
> On 18 Aug 2011, at 17:33, Javier Serrano wrote:

>
> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 16:36 -0400, phillip torrone wrote:
>
> 100% agree with david - just to add more encouragement if it's needed, limor and i (adafruit) are committed to using "open-source hardware" as the specific, and now well-defined name, for this movement.
>
> Sorry to come in a bit late in the debate. I can sympathize with both
> positions. I agree "open source hardware" is more clear, and there is an
> official definition for it. I also see many people (like us at CERN)
> have been calling "open hardware" designs which fully respect the OSHW
> definition, plus "open hardware" is quicker and most of the people I
> work with would understand by "open hardware" a piece of hardware whose
> complete design info is made available.
>
> A possible solution is to give "open source hardware" a very precise
> meaning (plus use that term for publicizing and defending the idea in
> places where precision is needed) and let "open hardware" be a more
> informal quick way of referring to it. I don't understand why a piece of
> otherwise closed hardware for which they give me the memory map so I can
> write a device driver for it would deserve the label "open hardware".
> There is nothing open in it, except what needs to be open for it to work
> at all: an interface, not the hardware. Also, what do you think people's
> perception is when they hear "Open Hardware Summit"? Do they think of an
> event where people are going to disclose memory maps and nothing else? I
> don't think so. So why leave this nice term which is quicker and
> catchier to people who do non-open design?
>
> So, to summarize: "open source hardware" for the definition and formal
> settings but "open hardware" perfectly acceptable in other cases and not
> frowned upon.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Javier

>
> _______________________________________________
> updates mailing list
> upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org
> http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/listinfo.cgi/updates-openhardwaresummit.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> updates mailing list
> upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org
> http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/listinfo.cgi/updates-openhardwaresummit.org
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> This Drone Eats People, Too
> http://www.dronecolony.com

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 20, 2011, 12:35:03 PM8/20/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alicia Gibb <alici...@buglabs.net>
Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: David Carrier <dcar...@parallax.com>
Cc: updates <upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org>


Cool - So the designer at Bug, Mateo - who has been doing the revisions has made a very brief design guide - attached. If you wanted to improve it that would be awesome. The state of it right now was all he had time to do before we threw about 90 other Open Hardware Summit stuff at him. We would love the help - apologies for not being completely transparent with the design guidelines until now, we should have tossed them out here before. This whole organizing a Summit makes us kind of busy.

Also Brandon - if you could put these up on the website too, you would be my hero.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:14 PM, David Carrier <dcar...@parallax.com> wrote:
Our graphic designer won't have time to modify it before we print, but the logo will only be thumbnail sized on the packaging, so I don't think any asymmetries will show up.  Over the weekend, I could fix the symmetry and add dimensions to the logo, like the USB logo on page two of this document: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/icon_design.pdf, as well as make DipTrace and Altium versions of the logo.

— David Carrier
Parallax Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: ayah bdeir [mailto:ay...@littlebits.cc]
Sent: Fri 8/19/2011 9:02 AM
To: David Carrier
Cc: updates
Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository

this is the same old one with finetuning in the kerning/ font / color
as requested by popular demand. Windell pointed out that upclose it
has some asymetries, so we will fix that as soon as we have time.
Unless your designer can fix them? :)


On 19 Aug 2011, at 11:57, David Carrier wrote:

> Thanks, I'll send the link to our graphic designer.  I hadn't seen
> that variation before, and it looks quite a bit different from the
> old one.  Is it relatively stable, or is it likely to change?

>
> Thank you,
> David Carrier
> Parallax Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alicia Gibb [mailto:alici...@buglabs.net]
> Sent: Fri 8/19/2011 8:49 AM
> To: David Carrier
> Cc: updates
> Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
>
> David,
> All the logos are here: http://oshwlogo.com/
> Including the new most up-to-date revision using the words "open
> source
> hardware"
>
>
> Alicia
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM, David Carrier
> <dcar...@parallax.com>wrote:
>
>> Philip,
>>    We had a bullet in the features list that said "open source
>> hardware",
>> but we were low on room in the features list, so we switched to
>> putting a
>> logo on the front of the package.  The problem is that the logo
>> only says
>> "open hardware".  If someone can make up a logo that says "open
>> source
>> hardware", and most everyone else is okay with it, I can have the
>> packages
>> updated.  It is still early here in California, so our graphic
>> designer
>> isn't in yet, but I soon should be able to find out the last-minute
>> deadline
>> for swapping out the logo.
>>
>> - David Carrier

>> Parallax Inc.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: updates...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org on behalf of
>> phillip
>> torrone
>> Sent: Fri 8/19/2011 8:41 AM
>> To: updates
>> Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
>>
>> hey david, i just posted about the parallax products hitting
>> radioshack,
>> congrats on this! i can't wait to see them in the nyc stores.
>>
>> from what i've seen, most of the companies and people making /
>> shipping the
>> most "open source hardware" are choosing to call it just that. if
>> you have
>> room for open-source hardware, i would say - great, go for it.
>> sparkfun puts
>> a logo on the boards, that's what we're also doing at adafruit.
>>
>> arduino wins the wordiest PCB contest so far :)
>>
>> open-source electronics
>> prototyping platform
>>
>> http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardUno
>>
>> this was before we had a logo and finalized naming / overview /
>> def, i'm
>> pretty sure arduino is in the "open-source hardware" camp as well.
>>
>> they were pioneers with the hyphen usage on pcbs however :)
>>
>> david, send me a note off list as to which products are open-source
>> hardware that are going to radioshack, i'll do up a post on MAKE,
>> this is a
>> huge milestone!
OSHw_logo_v2+miniGuide.pdf
OH-logo-update.pdf

Bryan Bishop

unread,
Aug 20, 2011, 3:35:00 PM8/20/11
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Windell H. Oskay <win...@oskay.net>
Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [OH Updates] Open source hardware logo repository
To: upd...@lists.openhardwaresummit.org



On Aug 20, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Christian Siefkes wrote:
> ee that "open hardware" is the better term, for at least two reasons:
>
> "Open-source hardware" is to long too practically usable in day-to-day
> usage; it leads to ugly abbreviations such as OSHW or OSH.

This is a poor objection, in the context that you are providing.  Neither OSHW nor OSH is as nearly ugly as FOSS, or FLOSS, IMHO.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software#Criticism_of_.22FLOSS.22_and_.22FOSS.22 :

The terms "FLOSS" and "FOSS" have come under some criticism for being counterproductive and sounding silly. For instance, Eric Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, has stated, "Near as I can figure ... people think they’d be making an ideological commitment ... if they pick 'open source' or 'free software'. Well, speaking as the guy who promulgated 'open source' to abolish the colossal marketing blunders that were associated with the term 'free software', I think 'free software' is less bad than 'FLOSS'. Somebody, please, shoot this pitiful acronym through the head and put it out of our misery." Raymond quotes programmer Rick Moen as stating "I continue to find it difficult to take seriously anyone who adopts an excruciatingly bad, haplessly obscure acronym associated with dental hygiene aids" and "neither term can be understood without first understanding both free software and open source, as prerequisite study."

By contrast, an abbreviation such as OSHW, which will normally be pronounced "Open source hardware" (rather than the comparable length, more unwieldy "Oh-Ess-Aich-Double-You") will never lead to such confusion.


> "Open-source hardware" completely ignores the fact that not everyone likes
> to refer to FOSS as "open source"; some prefer "free software".

So… what you're saying is that you'd prefer to use the term "free hardware?"    Go right ahead.

> Why should
> the latter want to refer to hardware as "open source" if they don't want to
> do you for software? "Open hardware" doesn't have this issue; it takes the
> "open" from "open source", but the general word structure from "free
> software", making it more acceptable for everybody.

If "Open software" were the preferred term, perhaps this argument would make some sense.


> The objection that "open hardware" is a vague term that can be understood in
> various ways is true,

Which is precisely why we shouldn't use it.

> but the same was also true of "free software" and even
> "open source", until the movements promoting these terms make it clear what
> exactly they meant them to mean.

You are absolutely wrong.   To this day, we still have to explain what "free software" is-- haven't you ever had to use terms like  "free as in speech" and "free/libre" ?  Why?   Even, why are "FOSS" or "FLOSS" used at all?   That's all because the term "free software" is still incredibly vague.   With "open source" we may need to explain it, but we only need to define it-- not to also overcome a pre-existing misconception.

Nobody wants to use the term "free hardware" because we all know *exactly* how hard to use the term "free software" is-- and that we have to keep saying  "free as in speech" and "free/libre."  Similarly, "Open hardware" is a vague term that can be understood in various ways, and has at times indeed been used to indicate hardware that has documented interfaces.   One might even argue that the term should be *retired* for this very reason.

Now, I myself use the TAPR OHL for releasing projects, and I don't mind the term "Open hardware" to refer-- informally --to Open Source Hardware.

But in picking between "Open Hardware" and "Open Souce Hardware,"  we have before us an *extraordinary opportunity* to adopt a new term that *does not have any other meaning.*  Such a term is an unparalleled tool in advancing our movement.  We shouldn't leave it behind.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages