[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness
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
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...
More information about the discuss