Is the Hugh Piggott wind turbine "open source"?
109 views
Skip to first unread message
Matthew Little
Feb 15, 2016, 5:16:34 PM2/15/16
to General Discussion Forum (Wind Empowerment)
I am wondering on the status of the Hugh Piggott wnd turbine design - is it definitely open-source hardware?
Lots of people say it is and it definitely has a very low barrier to entry for the design (basically buy or borrow the book or go on a course and there is all the information you need).
There are also free to download information on previous iterations and lots of information available
I'm just not sure if it has been classed as open source hardware and with what type of license it has been released under?
Hugh - do you have any thoughts on this?
I do some work in the open source electronics world and its a bit harder with hardware than with software to have an easy definition of open-source.
I generally use a creative commons license which allows people to use, adapt and sell my designs, as long as I'm always attributed.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
The main people involved in the definition of open source hardware are these folk:
http://www.oshwa.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware
It would be really good to have a definite license attached to the design so that people can work with it and make changes but always give attribution.
I think that this is definitely 'open source' hardware but it would be good to know what others think and if there is a definite open-source hardware license that could be applied.
Regards,
Matt
Hugh Piggott
Feb 16, 2016, 3:58:39 AM2/16/16
to General Discussion Forum (Wind Empowerment)
I'm just not sure if it has been classed as open source hardware and with what type of license it has been released under?
Hugh - do you have any thoughts on this?
Up to now if people ask I just repeat that my written material is for sale and may not be pirated reproduced and resold or given away even though sometimes this might seem a good and generous act. It's not fair to me after all the work I put into it. However the designs therein are free for anyone to use. I would hope that those who use them would give me verbal credit for them too. I would be upset if anyone claimed ownership of my intellectual property. But I never expect to share profits on manufacture/sale or the like.
I do not clearly understand the nature or the need for a licence but am open to the idea of one if it helps people and does not infringe my right to sell my work.
Hugh
Matthew Little
Feb 19, 2016, 5:32:19 PM2/19/16
to General Discussion Forum (Wind Empowerment)
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for the reply.
The term 'open source' is applied to lots of projects, but (I think) it has quite a specific statement, stemming from the open source hardware association.
One of the main things (from the software movevement) is that people can take the code and alter and improve it and release it as long as its released under the same license with accreditation of the original author.
With software this is easy to do and does not cost anything. With hardware this is harder, but still doable with things like online version control packages.
If, say, I wanted to take a part of the recipe book and then adjust/update/add more info, the only way I could do that would be to email you, you can then review it and potentially you could add it to the next version of the book.
This is a good way of having a peer review of the change (definitely a valuable thing to do as a way of keeping standards up and I am definitely not against this method).
I think there may be ways to do this in a more open format, but also it happens naturally via forums and online resuorces.
It does not really matter - I just had read a paper which said your design was open source and I just wondered if it specifically was or not.
Regards,
Matt
Thanks for the reply.
The term 'open source' is applied to lots of projects, but (I think) it has quite a specific statement, stemming from the open source hardware association.
One of the main things (from the software movevement) is that people can take the code and alter and improve it and release it as long as its released under the same license with accreditation of the original author.
With software this is easy to do and does not cost anything. With hardware this is harder, but still doable with things like online version control packages.
If, say, I wanted to take a part of the recipe book and then adjust/update/add more info, the only way I could do that would be to email you, you can then review it and potentially you could add it to the next version of the book.
This is a good way of having a peer review of the change (definitely a valuable thing to do as a way of keeping standards up and I am definitely not against this method).
I think there may be ways to do this in a more open format, but also it happens naturally via forums and online resuorces.
It does not really matter - I just had read a paper which said your design was open source and I just wondered if it specifically was or not.
Regards,
Matt
j...@tieole.com
Apr 22, 2016, 1:03:45 PM4/22/16
to General Discussion Forum (Wind Empowerment)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess you could say it's kind of like linux. The code or design is open to anyone to use in any way they like. But like a guide on programming Linux, a guide to building a wind turbine is copyrighted.
Jay
Jay
WindEmpowerment
Sep 10, 2016, 5:17:13 AM9/10/16
to General Discussion Forum (Wind Empowerment)
Hi all,
One of the most important aspects of open source hardware is that no patents exist. This is true for Hugh's designs as described in the recipe book and other publications of his. This means that one can manufacture these machines, sell them, use them, do whatever with them and not have to pay fees to Hugh for inventing the gravity furling system or to Tesla for inventing the axial flux generator or to Clark for inventing the Clark-Y airfoil which is close to the one we use etc (among other inventions which exist in this machine). Of course it is always good to say where you got the design from and this can be an integral part of an open source hardware license if it is under an Attribution-Commercial-ShareAlike license for example.
Of course Hugh has produced the manufacturing process that brings all this together, a process that is straight forward and easy to implement with simple tools and materials. This he describes in the recipe book, which he sells at a low cost, and has a copy right on it. It is true that all open source hardware designs have open documentation which anyone can use to build the machine, and modify and then republish under the same license. This is not the case with the Hugh Piggott turbine as the manufacturing process as described in the recipe book has a copyright. Of course there is the OtherPower book which describes a similar, but modified manufacturing process and also has a copyright on it.
To conclude, I think that this is an open source machine as there are no patents, which is the most important aspect. An open source version of the manufacturing process can be documented at some point for a similar wind turbine design as in the recipe book and for a similar but not the same manufacturing process. This of course this will need to be done in communication with Hugh as many parts of the manufacturing process might be similar. That said, I think no one will ever produce a how-to guide which is as complete and detailed as the Recipe Book, because this takes immense amounts of time, and this is the time and effort that Hugh rightfully deserves to get back through the copyright of the Recipe Book. The only way I see possible to produce a manual with such detailed and quality documentation and share it openly with the world, would only be possible under a collaborative and collective effort by a large group of people, such as the Wind Empowerment network for example, yet I think we are still far from that.
Cheers
Kostas
One of the most important aspects of open source hardware is that no patents exist. This is true for Hugh's designs as described in the recipe book and other publications of his. This means that one can manufacture these machines, sell them, use them, do whatever with them and not have to pay fees to Hugh for inventing the gravity furling system or to Tesla for inventing the axial flux generator or to Clark for inventing the Clark-Y airfoil which is close to the one we use etc (among other inventions which exist in this machine). Of course it is always good to say where you got the design from and this can be an integral part of an open source hardware license if it is under an Attribution-Commercial-ShareAlike license for example.
Of course Hugh has produced the manufacturing process that brings all this together, a process that is straight forward and easy to implement with simple tools and materials. This he describes in the recipe book, which he sells at a low cost, and has a copy right on it. It is true that all open source hardware designs have open documentation which anyone can use to build the machine, and modify and then republish under the same license. This is not the case with the Hugh Piggott turbine as the manufacturing process as described in the recipe book has a copyright. Of course there is the OtherPower book which describes a similar, but modified manufacturing process and also has a copyright on it.
To conclude, I think that this is an open source machine as there are no patents, which is the most important aspect. An open source version of the manufacturing process can be documented at some point for a similar wind turbine design as in the recipe book and for a similar but not the same manufacturing process. This of course this will need to be done in communication with Hugh as many parts of the manufacturing process might be similar. That said, I think no one will ever produce a how-to guide which is as complete and detailed as the Recipe Book, because this takes immense amounts of time, and this is the time and effort that Hugh rightfully deserves to get back through the copyright of the Recipe Book. The only way I see possible to produce a manual with such detailed and quality documentation and share it openly with the world, would only be possible under a collaborative and collective effort by a large group of people, such as the Wind Empowerment network for example, yet I think we are still far from that.
Cheers
Kostas
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages