[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness
carolina.odman at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 11:57:33 UTC 2013
In certain contexts the enclosure is a very important element; for example
in terms of security. Would an enclosure with tamper switches be considered
part of the hardware? It certainly is part of the design... my 2c
On 28 Feb 2013 1:51 PM, "Tom Igoe" <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss