[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

[alicia]

Via a conversation started offlist, we're discussing best practices to
clarify the oshw definition. The conversation was started by Catarina Mota
and Tom Igoe, first about a layering graphic similar to creative commons
and Phil Torrone's Layers of
licensing<http://www.ladyada.net/library/openhardware/whatisit.html>post.
Please view Tom's post below asking for how you currently use the
logo and whether your usage has changed in the past 2 years?


I also raised some questions that we get through OSHWA:

- I plan to release the files in 3/6/12 months, can still use the open
source hw logo?
- Can I use the oshw logo if my project is only partially open source?
- How do I or will OSHWA approach a company who has the open source hw logo
on their boards but no files?
- Must supplier details be given to use the oshw logo?
- Can I use the oshw logo on my product if I am using
a proprietary enclosure from another company, but the insides are mine?
- 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.)
- Can I release some of the software for a license, like a pro version, or
does that go against Free Redistribution, or is it okay because of clause
12 in the definition?
- What are the best practices for releasing a piece of open source hardware
and its documentation under the definition?
- Can I directly copy open source hardware (sans trademark), the oshw
definition says 'yes', but articles on oshw have a resounding 'no'.
- Is a different economic model (selling hw for cheaper or more expensive)
enough to call copied hardware a derivative?

Alicia




On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Tom Igoe <ti8 at nyu.edu> wrote:

> To me, the original topic, layering the definition in order to describe
> OSHW products in detail was about best practices for applying the
> definition.  So I'm not sure you're hijacking the topic at all. If the
> general consensus is that layering is a bad way to put the definition into
> practice, then I think it makes sense to switch gears and talk about ways
>  that it's currently being put into practice.
>
> We've talked about the definition as a social norm rather than a legal
> document, and that seems to be the general consensus.  So let's talk about
> how the definition is currently put into practice.  From there, maybe we
> can get to what best practices are.  Perhaps best to throw it out to
> everyone:
>
> The definition's been in place since February 2011. What are the best
> examples of how it's been put in practice since then, and how has it
> changed what you do?
>
> Once we have a few of those on the table, we'll have a better sense of
> what everyone's practice is, and can discuss the best of that.
>
> t.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130226/a3debef0/attachment.html>