[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

Tom Igoe tom.igoe at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 17:50:32 UTC 2013

Pierce, that's a really interesting way to phrase it, and accurate:

On Feb 28, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Pierce Nichols wrote:

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

It overlaps a bit with the argument about not open-sourcing the mechanicals, particularly of some toys, to keep them within CPSC compliance.  So burying the "legal compliance bit" (nice phrase) in proprietary hardware makes sense from a liability standpoint. If I know I'm using a radio that someone else did the compliance due diligence on, then I can, at worst, pass on any liability claims to them, while wrapping their module in an open "hardware API", of sorts.

I wonder if this means things get more open or less as we see more system-on-chips come out...


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130228/2a2116a0/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list