[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38

Thu Mar 7 21:43:08 UTC 2013

well, you do not print the whole menu, just the stuff you ordered,
so that immense set of options does boil down to something like this:

[image: Inline image 1]
I think what I hear you essentially suggesting is that we go through this
line by line and replace the items there with OSHWA equivalents for, say, a
Littlebits or a Makerbot?

_________________________________________
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 4:35 PM, Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>wrote:

> Nice image! That's what I was imagining. Even the short version may be
> hard to print on a PCB, but as long as they're somewhere on the packaging
> and product website it would be good. Not sure if this is the way to go
> though. What do other people think?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:33 PM, malcolm stanley <
> a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/a27c6588/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/a27c6588/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: laundry-tags.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 40807 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130307/a27c6588/attachment-0001.jpg>