[Discuss] What should come of this discussion?

[Catarina Mota]

As for changes, I'm a big fan of the great work you, Nathan and Phil did in
defining best practices for publishing files, but we must also consider
that open source hardware can also apply to bicycles, cars, buildings,
washing machines, coat hangers, etc.

And can we work something in about clearly declaring closed source parts
(the designer's own as Marco defined them)? Or to not say that product X is
open source if some of its parts (critical or not) are not?

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>wrote:

> This is a great idea David. If we start with the best practices for open
> sourcing something (some very clear do's and don't's), we'll probably find
> it easier to tackle the logo issue based on that. My preference goes to
> google docs.
>
> I also want to throw something else out there: we shouldn't just think in
> terms of the logo, we should also consider the use of the label "open
> source hardware" in the description/promotion of products and projects
> since that's what the definition covers, right?
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David A. Mellis <dam at mellis.org> wrote:
>
>> Great question, Nate! I think we could use a few things:
>>
>> *A definition of open-source hardware. *This we've got, although we may
>> need to do a better job of explaining that and how it applies to things
>> besides circuit boards. In most situations where things are described in
>> words, I think it's straightforward to be clear about which parts of a
>> project are open-source and which aren't. The confusion seems mostly to
>> arise when we're applying the logo in a situation where it's not clear what
>> it refers to. Which brings us to the next thing we need...
>>
>> *Guidelines for the use of the logo.* This seems to be most of what
>> we're debating. It's complicated by the variety of ways you can use the
>> logo and of combinations of open- and closed-source parts that might be
>> nearby. Does somewhat want to take a shot at distilling the discussion down
>> into some guidelines?
>>
>> *Best practices for open-sourcing something.* This would be great for
>> the community to work on. Nate's document (
>> http://www.oshwa.org/sharing-best-practices/) seems like a good starting
>> point, although I'd suggest rephrasing it to clarify which activities are
>> core to the practice of open-source hardware (i.e. sharing original source
>> / design files) and which are simply useful additions. Should we make a
>> Google Doc (or use a wiki) to edit it collaboratively? Anyone have any
>> specific suggestions for changes?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Nathan Seidle <nathan at sparkfun.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I am enthralled by this discussion but what should come of it? Topics to
>>> add to the FAQ? We need to consolidate the communities' feelings into one
>>> place so that we do not repeat the same debates.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130301/2ed6a4c2/attachment-0001.html>