[Discuss] Google Doc for describing best practices.
tom.igoe at gmail.com
Tue Mar 5 19:30:02 UTC 2013
I started a spreadsheet based on the best practices list that could be a potential BOM checklist for a product, to categorize its overall status:
My thinking is rather than "open/closed/partial", you simply have a column that lists license and another for location.
It's incomplete, just an idea. Feel free to add, delete, etc. If we could come up with a template like this, it could make it easier to simply describe a project's state rather than vet its openness or closedness. Industrial designers especially jump in. Your BOM templates would be really handy.
Maybe someone like Zak Homuth at Upverter would be good to bring into this conversation, since he's making tools like this. Zak, are you here?
On Mar 5, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Chris Church wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Nathan Seidle wrote:
>> Any part of a design that can be opened but is intentionally withheld will cause a design to be considered partially open. The rule of thumb: Have I released all the source files that I have access to? If the answer is no, then the project is not OSHW.
>> I don't want to discourage people from releasing! So I'm willing to consider 'partially open' wording as a way to allow folks to get the benefits of open community while closing parts of a design if they feel the need.
> I think the whole "partially-open" may seem judgmental to some people, and may be unnecessary. It's a label for the entire product, where one may not be needed (or should not be used) at all. Certainly, the product is not complete open-source, but... What about something along the lines of:
> Any part of the design which you have access to and choose to withhold is not open-source. You should open up as much as possible, but we understand that sometimes business requirements or contractual agreements may result in restricting the components which you may share. In this case, while the product is not completely open-source, you may state that it contains open-source technology, or is built using open-source technology. If you do this, you must clearly indicate either which parts are, or which parts are not, open-source where you use such labeling.
> The problem with the existing text appears to be that it allows the use of the mark with the additional text for products which aren't actually OSHW, whether or not they aspire to eventually be. (Of course, that's likely just my reading =)
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss