[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77

Mon Mar 18 20:01:06 UTC 2013

I think one of the issues with them term 'open' is that it has no
consequences if you use it. Something I continue to think about is
the incongruous parallels between openness like creative commons and using
the open source hardware logo. The source for writing and the product are
the same thing, so when putting something in the creative commons, the
product is more likely to be the source itself and people can copy and
paste, remix, whatever. With hardware, the product is different from the
source, so it includes another step to publish the files. I'd like to see a
test of reverse engineering on everything labeled as open hardware to see
where the companies really fall - for example, someone tears down / reverse
engineers the Pogo Linux box (*cough* ifixit) and publishes all the files
and remixes it and starts selling the new thing, what is Pogo's reaction?
If they are advertising oshw, they should be completely okay with this or
otherwise not use the term. If there was a consequence of having your stuff
published and remixed readily if you used the word open, I think there
would be a different approach to the word, but unfortunately even with
reverse engineering there's often layers we can't get to in complex
items.... and of course the point of oshw is to publish the files yourself.
But if it were advertised that anything with the word open were free to rip
apart / reverse engineer / etc. AND it happened on a very regular basis
when files were not published, perhaps we'd see more people following the
communal definitions (oshw) around the word.

Alicia

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM, malcolm stanley <
a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:

> there are two topics here.
>
> One topic is what happens if we ally with organizations that want to
> support Open Source Hardware as a means of creating and distributing
> technology that will meet some specific agenda, like open communications.
> Think about plans for shortwave radios makeable using items in the supply
> chain in N Korea.
>
> The other is what happens if we discover those same allies are doing
> everything they can to curb fundamental freedoms at home while at the same
> time encouraging us to help them meet such objectives abroad.
>
> The first sounds like an interesting outcome of choices we could make. the
> seciond sounds like someting we are already experiencing anyway.
>
> _________________________________________
> 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 Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Catarina Mota <
> catarina at openmaterials.org> wrote:
>
>> Looks like this topic is all over the internet today:
>>
>> http://tomslee.net/2013/03/futureeverything-notes.html
>>
>> http://gov20.govfresh.com/fauxpen-data-open-data-and-bridging-the-data-divide/
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM, malcolm stanley <
>> a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> open is such an elastic word...
>>> here is an "open technology fund" that is nominally all about
>>> technologies facilitating free expression...
>>> http://opentechfund.org/about
>>>
>>> _________________________________________
>>> 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 Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Catarina Mota <
>>> catarina at openmaterials.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great analysis Matt. More below.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Huh. His complaint seems to be specifically directed at the word
>>>>> "open" hanging out there by itself. Maybe in that sense "open source" is
>>>>> still a perfectly good phrase because it specifies what is expected to be
>>>>> "open" and how "open" works in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good point!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically "open source" has a much longer history in the
>>>>> intelligence world than the technology world. I wonder if they're quietly
>>>>> complaining to each other about how the meaning is changing and getting
>>>>> confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> Morozov's got a new book to flog that just happens to be on the same
>>>>> subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Along those lines, he's got a chapter on openness (ironically served
>>>>> up by Google's habit of being "open" enough to allow previewing of books)
>>>>> but it doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with "open source." It
>>>>> would be more accurate to say that he's got a problem with the idea of too
>>>>> much transparency in government.
>>>>>
>>>>> His use of Defense Distributed to link "open source" to "transparency"
>>>>> is quite good. Defense Distributed is an ideologically motivated group of
>>>>> activists who are using the mechanism of open sourcing easily manufactured
>>>>> plans to achieve the political objective of rendering gun control laws
>>>>> irrelevant. However, since he wrote a book on the subject I can't give him
>>>>> credit for ignorance when he actively confuses the ideas of "open source"
>>>>> and "transparency." Morozov says, "*One doesn’t need to look at
>>>>> projects like Defcad to see that “openness” has become a dangerously vague
>>>>> term, with lots of sex appeal but barely any analytical content*." He
>>>>> isn't bringing more clarity to the discussion, he's intentionally
>>>>> increasing the vagueness. When Defense Distributed says their work is "open
>>>>> source" they mean very specifically in the "open source software" sense
>>>>> that he mentions in the article. They do not mean in the "transparent
>>>>> government" sense he writes about in his book. They aren't pushing for
>>>>> transparent government records like some activist in Argentina (an example
>>>>> from the book) they are trying to create a genuinely new piece of
>>>>> technology and then, as is their prerogative, release the intellectual
>>>>> property under an open license. That's a textbook case of "open source
>>>>> software" and it's disingenuous of Morozov to pretend otherwise just to
>>>>> segue to the subject he wants to talk about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe this is too harsh a criticism based on one article and one
>>>>> chapter, but he seems to be abusing the very lack of specificity he's
>>>>> complaining about. For what it's worth, he might not like technologists,
>>>>> but I don't like anecdotalists. The problems of the world cannot be solved
>>>>> by technology. But, they also can't be solved by someone stringing together
>>>>> a dozen anecdotes and pretending that a point spontaneously emerged. I do
>>>>> know about Defense Distributed, and he's misrepresenting them, so it makes
>>>>> me wonder how many other anecdotes he's twisting to get onto the public
>>>>> speaking circuit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Haha, ok, so I have a confession to make. In the past I have read other
>>>> works by this author and couldn't agree with you more. He tends to write
>>>> provocative pieces that go against the grain, which is totally fine, but
>>>> seems to enjoy 'bending' things a bit to make a point while providing a
>>>> series of anecdotes as back up that don't really hold up to scrutiny. Let's
>>>> just say I'm not a fan. When I sent this two the list was with the goals of
>>>> 1) hearing what you all thought, 2) throwing another perspective into the
>>>> "open source hardware" brand discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anywho...just one more example of how open source needs a strong
>>>>> community voice. It would be great if a recognized and respected
>>>>> institution (like OSHWA) could give the NYT a new article to clarify the
>>>>> mistakes in that one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So true. One thing I learned about the news industry though:
>>>> although journalists are interested in reporting on open source, the nature
>>>> of their business requires that they 'hang' it on some kind of event that
>>>> then becomes the driving force for the article and the excuse to provide a
>>>> deeper explanation. Without such an event we don't really have many
>>>> opportunities to clarify what open source is in the NYT. Someone has to
>>>> write a book on open source hardware :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Message: 1
>>>>> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:57:13 -0400
>>>>> > From: Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>
>>>>> > To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>>>> >         <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>>>>> > Subject: [Discuss] Open and Closed
>>>>> > Message-ID:
>>>>> >         <CAH-asVZwkq=
>>>>> 55rmDd7ut4HAQCtUDEqT0OrrdWWTbnv2+p+aXjg at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Provocative, not very well grounded, but interesting nevertheless -
>>>>> and
>>>>> > related to the discussion we've been having about what it means to
>>>>> label
>>>>> > something as "open source."
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20130318/650fffef/attachment-0001.html>