[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

Catarina Mota catarina at openmaterials.org
Thu Mar 7 15:58:13 UTC 2013


Hi Michael. Can you please send the people who want to open source a
material our (OSHWA) way? They can reach us either at info at oshwa.org or me
directly at catarina at openmaterials.org. I'd love to help them open source
their substance/material.

Cheers,
Catarina

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Michael James <
michael at opensourcehardwarejunkies.com> wrote:

> Interesting discussion!
>
> -I plan to release the files in 3/6/12 months, can still use the open
> source hw logo?
>
> I would agree with pretty much every one above - good intentions do not
> equal OSH
>
> -Can I use the oshw logo if my project is only partially open source?
>
> I say yes.  I know a group that has been working for several years to
> develop an OSH charge-controller for controlling the output from PV cells,
> the initial idea of the creator was that they would be able to create a
> module that would be designed so well and cost effective that larger
> companies might want to use the charge-controller as sub components of
> larger assemblies - basically design in the OSH part.  The focus of the
> group has changed, but that idea sticks with me.  And while it feels
> misleading to have a product with the OSH logo be only partially composed
> of OSH, I feel like getting the logo into the world, especially in consumer
> products, would be a boon for the community.  This may be dumb,
> or manufacturing restrictive, but what if the logo had two colors.  The
> blue logo means - this *whole* product is OSH (with Michael Shilohs'
> point 1 being the qualifier - can it reasonably be reproduced with the
> files provided).  And the Orange means - this product *contains* OSH.  It
> seems clear to me from the discussion that we should not neglect the
> partial OSH, and I also think that we will find that "OSH Purity" is going
> to be hard to define.
>
> - How do I or will OSHWA approach a company who has the open source hw
> logo on their boards but no files?
> I am for letting the community shun them.
>
> - Must supplier details be given to use the oshw logo?
>
> I agree with Peirce Nichols here, and say no - too restrictive.
>
>  - This movement feels like you're leaving out mechanical designs /
> architecture / nanotech, how can I interpret your definition to include my
> projects? (This comes to us a lot, which perhaps prompted Catarina to start
> exploring a space that would better include them.)
>
> Just spoke with a gentleman about this exact issue/problem.  These people
> have made a "substance" or a "material". What source files would be
> necessary? i.e. Is the recipe for playdough the design file?  On an aside,
> if you have any advice where I could point these folks please shoot me a
> line...
>
> - Can I release some of the software for a license, like a pro version, or
> does that go against Free Redistribution, or is it okay because of clause
> 12 in the definition?
> I say go for it.  It gives companies selling OSH an option for revenue.
>  With Davids caveat that the provided software should be
> necessary and sufficient for the use of the item.  And that there would be
> nothing restricting the user from making there own software that would do
> the same thing or better than the pro version.
>
> - What are the best practices for releasing a piece of open source
> hardware and its documentation under the definition?
> I  really like how Spark Fun does it.  They list a bunch of the design and
> source files right on the product page of the items - there is no digging
> around for them.  I think it will be hard to define exactly what files, as
> the scope of OSH includes so much stuff.  Maybe leaning back to Michael
> Shilohs' point 1 being the qualifier - can it reasonably be reproduced with
> the files provided.
>
> - Can I directly copy open source hardware (sans trademark), the oshw
> definition says 'yes', but articles on oshw have a resounding 'no'.
> - Is a different economic model (selling hw for cheaper or more expensive)
> enough to call copied hardware a derivative?
> Direct copies seem a bit lame, but if the "copier" is improving a
> process(es) in the manufacturing that makes the product more economically
> feasible, than it seems let shady.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Alicia Gibb <pip at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>
>> This is all just my personal opinion here.
>>
>> *Best Practices response:*
>>
>> For this question:
>>
>>> - Can I use the oshw logo on my product if I am using
>>> a proprietary enclosure from another company, but the insides are mine?
>>
>>
>> I think for me it's important that the proprietary enclosure can be
>> physically open to get at the hardware inside - sort the ifix if you can't
>> open it you don't own it approach.
>>
>> - Can I directly copy open source hardware (sans trademark), the oshw
>>> definition says 'yes', but articles on oshw have a resounding 'no'.
>>
>>
>> I think if we're really about being open, this should actually be okay -
>> think of all the open source code that gets copied and pasted directly
>> (with attribution of course). And as David states, there may be times when
>> it is necessary  If the community is largely not okay with this, then it
>> should be worked into the definition that open source hardware is
>> for derivatives only (personally, that kind of restriction would make me
>> sad). Otherwise, I think as a community we need to change our attitude and
>> be accepting that someone may copy you and price you out.
>>
>> - Can I use the oshw logo if my project is only partially open source?
>>
>>
>> I agree with David's response, and when Michael used the word
>> functionality that made me think, maybe the line is drawn at: Can the
>> hardware function as planned with the files provided, or must the user
>> create hacks to make it work? If someone has to create a hack in order to
>> use it, it shouldn't be using the oshw logo. Furthermore, (/me is all
>> sharey-sharey and barfs rainbows) if hacks were done to a partially open
>> source project, and the creator decided to sue for infringement, I hope
>> they would lose in court as I think the social norm will tend to be
>> accepting about hacking partially open source hardware. Would be
>> interesting to hear Bre's take on this comment, not that MB has sued anyone
>> of course, but I'm interested to know how the logistics of some open / some
>> closed would manifest. This is also where clarity would play a huge role -
>> also I think MB is clear about what is what.
>>
>> - This movement feels like you're leaving out mechanical designs /
>>> architecture / nanotech, how can I interpret your definition to include my
>>> projects? (This comes to us a lot, which perhaps prompted Catarina to start
>>> exploring a space that would better include them.)
>>
>>
>> To start addressing this problem, we contacted Massimo Menichenelli and
>> hope that he joins the conversation. He's working on an Open
>> Design Definition<http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/open-design/working-on-the-open-design-definition/>,
>> which relates closely to the oshw definition. Maybe we could combine best
>> practices, somehow partner or nest the definitions, as I think the oshw
>> definition was heavily based on the open design definition  written in
>> 2000 <http://opendesign.org/odd.html>?
>>
>> *Certification Response:*
>> *
>> *
>> @Marco - The idea of the certificate I think is only a matter of time if
>> this movement continues to grow on the path it has been. As Cameron says
>> though, I'm not real sure a monetary structure with that certification
>> would be appropriate. Maybe for large companies that can afford it. But
>> OSHWA will have to make its money somewhere if we take on a project like
>> this that will require we have a FT staff. Also, I think to enable
>> something like that as OSHWA we'd have to start a separate 501(c)5 - a
>> business league, but maybe not if it's community driven and the branding is
>> just housed at OSHWA, like the logo is now. Speaking of the logo - there's
>> been some confusion out there, the oshw logo is not trademarked. We
>> realized with the pickle trademark law put OSI in to stop others from
>> using derivative marks (like ours), it didn't really seem like a good idea
>> to close down something created for and by a community.
>>
>> We dabble in talking licenses with all this definition stuff, and every
>> time so far have decided a social norm is best. But perhaps we're talking
>> about it from the wrong side, maybe we should be talking about building
>> upon public domain rather than stripping licenses. This really interesting
>> article on public domain came to me via Catarina Mota:
>>
>> http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Why-it-s-time-to-stop-using-open-source-licences-1802140.html
>>
>> First off, his research about whether open-source-type users use licenses
>> echos ours: He found that people no longer apply licenses in GitHub at the
>> same rate they once did. A lot of code is now uploaded with no license at
>> all - which he recognizes that may be problematic as well. Similarly, in
>> the data we collected from about 2,000 oshw participants, the vast majority
>> did not use a license. Perhaps that is because licenses are becoming less
>> relevant.
>>
>> Perhaps instead create a new type of public domain that requires
>> attribution (and share-alike), which is the suggestion from the lawyer
>> who's paper is being reviewed in this article. Since all hardware is
>> technically open until patented, maybe the thinking about open source
>> hardware as a license is thinking about it top down instead of bottom up
>> for lack of a better parallel. The difference in hardware and software may
>> lay in the fact that hardware does attempt direct economic advantage,
>> whereas this author states that within software: "The literature suggests
>> that the purposes of individuals in contributing to open-licensed projects
>> have little to do with direct economic advantage; rather, their interests
>> in contributing primarily lie in creativity, reputation-enhancement, and
>> indirect economic rewards." But! I would argue that so far open hardware is
>> proving to be lucrative and have direct economic advantages, even with many
>> creative derivatives (Arduino). The largest issue we've collectively seen
>> in the community is a problematic copying everything including the original
>> company's trademark. And public domain inherently protects Trademark,
>> because Trademark protects the consumer rather than the intellectual
>> property.
>>
>> If we chose to move toward the path of a certificate or some kind of
>> new-fangled social norm, I would challenge us to think from public domain
>> up.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Michael Shiloh <
>> michaelshiloh1010 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I see two recurring themes in these responses:
>>>
>>> 1) The overall guideline might be "can someone reproduce this project to
>>> a reasonable degree (e.g. functionally the same, if perhaps the case is not
>>> identical) with the information provided?
>>>
>>> 2) That the discussion continues as we continue to think this through,
>>> and as we develop projects that explore areas we had not considered.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/27/2013 08:54 AM, David A. Mellis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's my take on these. What do the rest of you think?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:51 PM, alicia <amgibb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  - I plan to release the files in 3/6/12 months, can still use the open
>>>>> source hw logo?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No. Or, at least, not until the files are released. Until then, it's not
>>>> actually open-source.
>>>>
>>>> - Can I use the oshw logo if my project is only partially open source?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This one is tricky and I think it depends on which parts are open and
>>>> where
>>>> and how the logo is used. For example, I think it would be fine to put
>>>> the
>>>> logo on an open-source circuit board that's inside a proprietary
>>>> enclosure
>>>> but the reverse might be misleading. To put the logo on a product's
>>>> packaging, I think the primary component(s) of the product should be
>>>> open-source but it's not necessarily clear what those are. Similarly for
>>>> using the logo on the product's website. In these kinds of cases, it's
>>>> important to be specific and clearly indicate which parts are
>>>> open-source
>>>> and which parts aren't.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's also interesting to look at how open-source software
>>>> handles
>>>> this question. In large part, the strategy seems to be specificity about
>>>> what constitutes a project (i.e. giving open-source components their own
>>>> name and identity) rather than clear conventions about how to handle
>>>> partially-open bundles of software (cf. the ongoing debate about the
>>>> appropriateness of including proprietary software or binary blobs in
>>>> Linux
>>>> distributions).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - How do I or will OSHWA approach a company who has the open source hw
>>>>> logo on their boards but no files?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This seems like something OSHWA should do, although I'm not sure what
>>>> the
>>>> best approach would be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - Must supplier details be given to use the oshw logo?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In general, I would say no, particularly if you're using standard parts
>>>> (e.g. 6 mm plywood or a SOT23 transistor). I don't think, however, that
>>>> you
>>>> can use supplier anonymity as an excuse for not specifying the parts
>>>> used:
>>>> e.g. when the supplier is a defining feature of the part (e.g. an "Atmel
>>>> AVR ATmega328" vs. "8-bit microcontroller").
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - Can I use the oshw logo on my product if I am using
>>>>> a proprietary enclosure from another company, but the insides are mine?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Again, I think this one is tricky. If the enclosure is a simple generic
>>>> project box and the primary component of the product is your custom,
>>>> open-source circuit board, I think using the logo would be okay
>>>> (although
>>>> you should specify that the enclosure is proprietary). The more complex
>>>> the
>>>> enclosure and the simpler the insides, however, the less appropriate the
>>>> use of the logo seems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - This movement feels like you're leaving out mechanical designs /
>>>>> architecture / nanotech, how can I interpret your definition to
>>>>> include my
>>>>> projects? (This comes to us a lot, which perhaps prompted Catarina to
>>>>> start
>>>>> exploring a space that would better include them.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As long as there's a source file (that can be used to produce the
>>>> object)
>>>> and you share it in an appropriate way (e.g. in the preferred format for
>>>> making modifications and allowing commercial re-use), I don't think
>>>> there
>>>> should be a problem. While there may be some clauses in the definition
>>>> that
>>>> sound specific to electronic circuits, I think this is more of an issue
>>>> of
>>>> communication and culture than the definition itself, but certainly one
>>>> we
>>>> should be addressing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - Can I release some of the software for a license, like a pro
>>>>> version, or
>>>>> does that go against Free Redistribution, or is it okay because of
>>>>> clause
>>>>> 12 in the definition?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As long as you satisfy clauses 1 (releasing the design files) and 3
>>>> (necessary software), it's probably okay (although not ideal) to also
>>>> charge for a better version of the software / firmware, as long as
>>>> people
>>>> don't need it to use the product's essential functions. Clause 12 means
>>>> that you can't release your design under a license that requires people
>>>> to
>>>> use a particular technology (e.g. a specific family of
>>>> microcontrollers) in
>>>> their derivatives. That's a separate issue from the information you
>>>> need to
>>>> release in making the design open-source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - What are the best practices for releasing a piece of open source
>>>>> hardware and its documentation under the definition?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Good question. It's great that we're having a discussion about these
>>>> and we
>>>> should definitely document them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - Can I directly copy open source hardware (sans trademark), the oshw
>>>>> definition says 'yes', but articles on oshw have a resounding 'no'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's allowed but obnoxious unless there's a good reason for it. (For
>>>> example, large import duties in your country might be a good reason for
>>>> making a local version.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  - Is a different economic model (selling hw for cheaper or more
>>>>> expensive)
>>>>> enough to call copied hardware a derivative?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a restatement of the previous question, since the
>>>> difference between a "derivative" and a "clone" seems to be mostly one
>>>> of
>>>> perspective and attitude. Again, it seems that most people are annoyed
>>>> to
>>>> someone who simply copies hardware without a good reason but it's not
>>>> clear
>>>> if a different economic model counts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/**listinfo/discuss<http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss>
>>>>
>>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/**listinfo/discuss<http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130307/f6df2c66/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list