[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38
Michael Shiloh
michaelshiloh1010 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 11 02:38:28 UTC 2013
> more like a nutrition label
Makes me think of the food pyramid. A well-balanced program should have
3 servings of open source hardware, 5 servings of open source software,
and a couple servings of open source manufacturing.
On 03/10/2013 06:59 PM, Tom Igoe wrote:
> (this mail seems to have trouble going out to the list for some reason. Sorry if
> it's a repeat)
>
> Great idea, but I wasn't actually imagining icons on the board itself, but on
> the website or packaging, more like a nutrition label. I think the two could
> work well together.
>
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Catarina Mota 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
>> <mailto:a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> sorry, with image:
>>
>> <laundry.gif>
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> malcolm stanley
>>
>> google.voice: 215.821.6252 <tel:215.821.6252>
>> Cell: 267.251.9479 <tel:267.251.9479> <------------- new
>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com <mailto:a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com>
>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>> <http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com/>
>> _________________________________________
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM, malcolm stanley
>> <a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com <mailto:a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> It could be similar to the laundry symbols on textiles.
>>
>> Like these?
>>
>> 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 <tel:215.821.6252>
>> Cell: 267.251.9479 <tel:267.251.9479> <------------- new
>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com <mailto:a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com>
>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>> <http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com/>
>> _________________________________________
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Catarina Mota
>> <catarina at openmaterials.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:catarina at openmaterials.org>>
>>> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:catarina at openmaterials.org>>
>>> >> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>> >> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto: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
>
More information about the discuss
mailing list