[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77

[Marketply]

Good morning Alicia,

I believe technology is evolving such as to make it easier for people to share
the method and stand out as genuine. We're developing a few strategies which
might help, one is a digital wireframe standard to emulate all hardware,
software, and firmware. It's open and comes in two parts: a wireclone and a
simuclone (think wireframe and simulation).

Another strategy is "teachOpen", a way to certify that you record exactly how
you build something. It's a free certification and any company can apply, but we
let the community decide if they pass. Our company is doing business this way,
teaching how we create everything and inviting other businesses and
organizations to participate in order to build a community and to speed up the
creation of best practices.

The third strategy is to simply have a trademark to certify goods as open, again
decided by the community. I'll go into details later we'll overcome the usual
pitfalls with this route.

See: http://www.marketply.org/seeds/#teachopen

And check out or subscribe for updates to either:
https://twitter.com/wireclone
https://twitter.com/simuclone

~Marino



> On March 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM Alicia Gibb <pip at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> 
>  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
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130319/05950d21/attachment.html>