[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 13

[malcolm stanley]

*After sleeping on it an escrow does seem a bit too coercive for this
context; kinda jumping the gun. It would really only be relevant if people
were abusing an openness mark and the community wanted to make an extra
effort to enforce standards.*
*
*
It was only really suggested as a foil to be used with the ephemerally
reluctant;
a proof that if the principle of what we are doing really is important, as
you may say it is,
that there is always a way to fulfil the promise and provide the necessary
proof through action.

The suggestion was never intended to be as a mandatory requirement.

_________________________________________
malcolm stanley

google.voice:  215.821.6252
Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
twitter / linkedin: amstanley
Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
_________________________________________


On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, lets back up a bit. My impression was that we were discussing an
> OSHWA mark that the open hardware community could rely on as a guarantee of
> openness. More specifically, as a guarantee that a commercial project
> actually qualifies as open source. Nobody's worried about the hobby
> projects being open, they're worried about the for-profit projects (see
> Makerbot).
>
> Is a self-selected openness-mark really going to accomplish anything? At
> the moment anybody can claim openness just by, you know, claiming it. They
> could write it on their PCB or inside their case if they felt like it.
> Would providing them with a professionally designed glyph to say the same
> thing make any difference?
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that only a curated
> openness mark can possibly achieve any level of value. The users want an
> objective assessment of a project's openness and the competing producers
> want a consistent standard. Anything short of that is ripe for the same
> "open washing" that inspired the discussion, right?
>
> I agree that raises the level of commitment necessary from whatever
> organization wants to be in charge. But I don't see how anything short of
> that will make any difference. Besides, at the end of the day if a
> standards-based openness mark is a conflict of interest then maybe it's
> just not worth pursuing.
>
> The escrow idea isn't an integral part of the openness mark idea. I just
> thought it could be useful. After sleeping on it an escrow does seem a bit
> too coercive for this context; kinda jumping the gun. It would really only
> be relevant if people were abusing an openness mark and the community
> wanted to make an extra effort to enforce standards.
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see a few problems with that:
>>
>> * it implies that the files are done in advance of the product release.
>> You really don't want to release half-baked files, even to escrow.
>>
>> * projects hit delays. You could say"we plan to release by x" and for
>> various logistical reasons not be ready to release the product by x. Better
>> to choose a goal than a date, e.g you'll release the files when the product
>> goes on sale. That doesn't work for non- commercial members though.
>>
>> * who is responsible for maintaining the files in escrow? The oshwa board
>> is made up of folks who both collaborate and compete with each other and
>> other oshwa members. I trust them all because I know them personally. But
>> is my experience universal? You're introducing a big potential conflict of
>> unrest there.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130303/82ef56f7/attachment.html>