[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

[Pierce Nichols]

Tom,

Thanks for mentioning the Zigduino. :)

Not all of the possible radio stacks for the Zigduino are open. Some
(ZigduinoRadio, contiki, uracoli) qualify as open source software
under the usual definitions, and I tend to use those exclusively for
my own work with it for that reason. There are also source available
stacks (Atmel's IEEE MAC library) with non-open licensing terms and
completely cloistered ones (BitCloud).

What makes this work is that the legal compliance critical bits are
buried in the hardware implementation. Everything else is standards
compliance.

-p

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at 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
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>



--
Pierce Nichols
Principal Engineer
Logos Electromechanical, LLC