[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38

[Tom Igoe]

I think you're talking about two different things here. I'm not sure Catarina's talking about a sticker or logo, so much as an inventory tool.

t.

On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Matt Maier wrote:

> Catarina,
>  
> I agree with all of your sentiments regarding the integrity of the open source hardware definitions and mark(s).
>  
> It doesn't seem like a sticker or a logo will have enough space to provide any useful resolution on which subcomponents are open. And as you pointed out the source files, while they can contain infinite resolution, might be hard to find.
>  
> What if the mark/stamp/logo/whatever was used only to identify things that are totally open.
>  
> For things that are partially open, or that contain open components, there could be a flyer (like a receipt, mattress tag, or warranty card) that has enough surface area to summarize the open components and their associated licenses. The added expense would be minimal and some projects would even have enough material to just print the flyer on an inside surface as part of the manufacturing process.
>  
> Not so much a "mark" as an "openness card."
>  
> Of course it wouldn't be mandatory, but the OSHWA could define best practices and a template for the openness card to make it easy for producers to standardize so that consumers/developers know what they're looking at.
>  
> Cheers,
> Matt
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:36:58 -0500
> From: Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>         <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 35
> Message-ID:
>         <CAH-asVYrCJ0vR_DnuTKH2vtAxT+YuGYU3FqwSWET7V=mYPxWbQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Agreed, this could work. I wasn't suggesting that the more detailed label
> needs to be on the product itself (though a sticker would make it easier to
> deal with), but there should be some sort of clarity about whether or not a
> project is open or partially open. And if we say it's partially open then
> somewhere (on the documentation? on the website? on the product's
> packaging?) we should state which parts are open source.
> 
> 
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> >
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:26:33 -0500
> >> From: Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>
> >> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> >>         <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness
> >> Message-ID:
> >>         <CAH-asVZtQaQsqswJjXXoPWBHtnFpxn422+WmgJvAj22fky-W=
> >> Q at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>
> >> This is why I was so attracted to Tom's idea of a label that, no matter
> >> where it's placed on the product, tells you right away what parts are
> >> open.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/dfd746e5/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> End of discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38
> ***************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130307/7859e9a2/attachment.html>