Fwd: OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Massimo Menichinelli <in...@openp2pdesign.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness
To: dis...@lists.oshwa.org


Hi all,
I've missed somehow this mailing list before, so I'm jumping in the discussion right now.
About the Open Design Definition: when we started the Open Design Working Group at the Open Knowledge Foundation (http://design.okfn.org) we weren't satisfied with the Open Design Definition written in 2000, before that Open Design actually developed and that just changed the word "software" into "design" from the Open Source Definition (which is great, but software and design are not the same thing, so we should discuss a bit before adopting everything).

Furthermore, many definitions directly addressed one or more license for the open content, but the IP landscape for design is very complicated (each country has its own laws, different design fields are treated in a different way, and so on) so it is very difficult to say that there's a license for Open Design (CC only applies when design can be copyrighted, therefore not always). So the idea was to develop a shared definition of Open Design before discussing the issue of the license.

We are developing the Open Design Definition in an open source way with a repository in GitHub and a mailing list:
https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/

Please feel free to open an issue in the repository or to join our mailing list! :)
If you would like to join the team behind the repository, send me your GitHub username and I will add you.

I hope I can help by bringing some Open Design discussion in this list! :)

Br,

Massimo

On 2013-02-27 20:38, Alicia Gibb wrote:

- This movement feels like you're leaving out mechanical designs /
architecture / nanotech, how can I interpret your definition to
include my projects? (This comes to us a lot, which perhaps
prompted Catarina to start exploring a space that would better include
them.)

r:rgb(255,255,255)">To start addressing this problem, we contacted Massimo Menichenelli and hope that he joins the conversation. He's working on an Open Design Definition [1], which relates closely to the oshw definition. Maybe we could combine be

 somehow partner or nest the definitions, as I think the oshw
definition was heavily based on the open design definition  written in

2000 [3]? 

Links:
------
[1]

http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/open-design/working-on-the-open-design-definition/
[2] http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
[3] http://opendesign.org/odd.html
[4]

http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-it-s-time-to-stop-using-open-source-licences-1802140.html

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
dis...@lists.oshwa.org
http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss

--
______________________________________________________________________
Massimo Menichinelli
mobile: (ITA) +39 3402971655 (FIN) +358 505981442
Skype: openp2pdesign.org
http://it.linkedin.com/in/massimomenichinelli
______________________________________________________________________
openp2pdesign.org
Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects
http://www.openp2pdesign.org/
______________________________________________________________________
Aalto University
Aalto Media Factory - Aalto FabLab (Producer for the FabLab activities)
http://mediafactory.aalto.fi/
http://fablab.aalto.fi/
______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
dis...@lists.oshwa.org
http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss

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

[Bryan Bishop]

From: David A. Mellis <d...@mellis.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Subject: Re: [Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List <dis...@lists.oshwa.org>

These are interesting examples, Tom, but again I think they mostly point out the need to be specific about what part of a product you're calling open-source. For example, here I think it's clear that the PCBs for the SparkFun and Arduino products (I couldn't find files for the Adafruit one) are themselves open-source even if the components they use are not. I think we're much better off being specific about what's open and what's not rather than trying to set standards for, say, the relative complexity of the board vs. the components required for the overall product to be considered open-source -- especially given that basically every product uses proprietary components (whether ICs or radio modules or just screws). The latter approach seems like a potentially endless conversation. Again, look at Linux distributions, where people are still arguing about what level of proprietary software and binary blobs are appropriate to include. 

Also, my point about using the logo on an enclosure vs. on the PCB inside it wasn't meant as a comment on the relative importance of those two parts but of the semantic interpretation of placing the logo in those places. If I opened up a product and saw the OSHW logo on some part inside it, I wouldn't interpret it to apply to things around it. But if I saw the logo on the outside of a product, it's not clear whether or not it's intended to apply to the insides as well, making its use there confusing if the outsides are open-source but the insides aren't.

As an example in the other direction (of electrical vs. mechanical) would be someone that uses a standard servo or DC motor and builds a complex mechanical assemblage around it. If they open-sourced, say, the CAD files they used to design the laser-cut parts that make up the assembly, I'd consider it reasonable for them to use the open-source hardware logo on their packaging or website, even if the motor were proprietary (since it would be just one component of the larger, open-source design). But again, these situations can be confusing and its important to be explicit about what's open-source and what's not.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Tom Igoe <tom....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Michael Shiloh wrote:

1) The overall guideline might be "can someone reproduce this project to a reasonable degree (e.g. functionally the same, if perhaps the case is not identical) with the information provided?

So, let's pick a few specific examples, all of which think highly of, and use myself (admitted bias on the third). But I struggle with defining them as entirely open:

https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11378

The major piece of hardware on this board is a proprietary module from Roving Networks.  Though SparkFun's support schematic is clearly open, the module that makes this functional is not, nor is it reprogrammable. The API for it is open, though. Is this OSHW?  What's the replacement part that could drop into this board and make it work, with minor modifications?

http://adafruit.com/products/746

Similarly, the major piece of hardware (the GPS radio) is proprietary, even though Adafruit's support schematic is clearly open. What's the drop in part (note: Adafruit hasn't put the OSHWA logo on here, so it's possible they don't claim this is open)

http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoWiFiShield

The WiFi radio on this board is proprietary, even though the support processor and its firmware and board schematics are open. This is perhaps a more complex board than the other two, but I'm not sure that complexity changes things much. Or does it?

Contrast those three with this:

http://logos-electro.com/zigduino/

This is perhaps closer to the definition than the others, in that the firmware for the radio module *is* open. 

My question is: do we need to differentiate between these in terms of their openness,or not?  There are plenty of other examples I could pull. I know my work would suffer if I decided not to use these parts, they're all staples in my work. And I'm not an open source hardware absolutist, I use plenty of proprietary hardware.  But I'm genuinely not sure where the line is with some of the products we make and use every day.

t.

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
dis...@lists.oshwa.org
http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
dis...@lists.oshwa.org
http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Andrew Orr <and...@andreworr.ca>
Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Subject: Re: [Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness
To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List <dis...@lists.oshwa.org>

Cc: Benjamin Bergman <b...@benbergman.ca>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Alicia Gibb <p...@nycresistor.com> wrote:

For the examples at hand, I think Marco said it best in one of his earlier posts. If you have designed something and choose not to release those files then it us proprietary, but if you're using someone else's proprietary parts that other people can buy on the market, then those are attainable and would not stop people from re-creating your device. I think it's good to go back to the question of remanufacturing. Can someone remanufacture all those examples above? I think yes.

I agree 100% with this.

Basically the way I see it is anything that *I* produce that I want to toss the OSHW logo on, should be open. To me that means the hardware design files (gerbers and originals), the BOM, and the source to any mcu or hdl code that I wrote should all be made available (if I want to put the logo on a PCB). This validates as per the "Can someone remanufacture?" question.

I'm not claiming that the mcu I use is open hardware, nor am I claiming that the commercial enclosure I use is open hardware. What I am claiming by putting the OSHW logo on a pcb is that the pcb I designed and the software I wrote for it is open and I'm providing the files to back that up.

The whole goal to me with open source hardware and software is being able to "stand on the shoulders of giants", that is, build on the work of others, and let them build on my work. I think the "Can someone remanufacture?" question encompasses this.

I also would like to add that I think a payment/license to use the OSHW logo is silly, but at the same time donating to OSHWA should be made easier (arbitrary amounts separate from membership dues).

Also I'd like to say thanks to everyone who's putting time/work into this, it is much appreciated!

Cheers,

-Andrew

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
dis...@lists.oshwa.org
http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss