[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

[Tom Igoe]

A couple of observations:


Dave's response below and Alicia's that follow it indicate a pretty definite bias: the electronics are "hardware" but the enclosure is something less important, maybe not even "hardware".  

Even though we give lip service to enclosures being hardware at other times, statements like this run counter to that. How do we deal with that in practice?


On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:54 AM, David A. Mellis wrote:

> 
> - Can I use the oshw logo if my project is only partially open source?
> 
> This one is tricky and I think it depends on which parts are open and where and how the logo is used. For example, I think it would be fine to put the logo on an open-source circuit board that's inside a proprietary enclosure but the reverse might be misleading. To put the logo on a product's packaging, I think the primary component(s) of the product should be open-source but it's not necessarily clear what those are. Similarly for using the logo on the product's website. In these kinds of cases, it's important to be specific and clearly indicate which parts are open-source and which parts aren't.
> 


And Alicia's below:

For this question: 
- Can I use the oshw logo on my product if I am using a proprietary enclosure from another company, but the insides are mine?
 
I think for me it's important that the proprietary enclosure can be physically open to get at the hardware inside - sort the ifix if you can't open it you don't own it approach.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130228/493fd9f9/attachment-0001.html>