[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38

Thu Mar 7 21:33:58 UTC 2013

sorry, with image:

[image: Inline image 1]

_________________________________________
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 Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM, malcolm stanley <a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
> wrote:

>  It could be similar to the laundry symbols on textiles.
>
>  Like these?
>
> [image: laundry.gif]
>
>
> So I see shapes for major categories of activity, combined with clarifying
> text in many cases.
>
> Multiple symbols can be used per item.
>
> The symbols can be found on the web if further clarification is required.
>
> Interestingly, there are instructions (positive signalling) and warnings
> (negative signalling) in the same symbol set.
>
>
> Applied to the use case here, what I hear you suggesting is that we have a
> major "shape" for each category, like electronics, case, software (already
> has a symbol set, really, in CC), and so on, and then within each of those
> we can have further clarifying text or warnings.
>
>
> is that your thought?
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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 Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>wrote:
>
>> I'm referring to a better way to determine how a project/product should
>> be presented to the world: Does it have the OSHW logo on it? Is it
>> described as open source hardware on its website etc.? How do we label
>> open/closed hybrids?
>>
>> It's been suggested we use two different symbols, one for fully open and
>> another for partially open. Or that only the components that are open
>> source be labeled that way, which may present some manufacturing
>> difficulties. But I still like the idea of Tom's at glance label that can
>> be both on the documentation and on the product (as a sticker or
>> something). As Matt suggests, products that are entirely open source can
>> just bear the blue gear logo since there is no additional info to provide
>> about their openness; and items that are hybrids would have a flyer or
>> sticker somewhere in/on their packaging. It could be similar to the laundry
>> symbols on textiles.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/f4811dd9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: laundry.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 27047 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130307/f4811dd9/attachment-0001.gif>