[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77

malcolm stanley a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
Tue Mar 19 21:06:34 UTC 2013


I am spending the week at the nVidia GPU conference in San Jose.
At the conference I ran into Manfred van der Voort of ICR3ATE,  a company
that sells sharing tools for object design.
I mentioned to him that we are discussing how you signify licences on
designs for items;
he says that on his platform when you create a design then you can share
that design under a variety of licences,  and that the licence is part of
the design record.
I'm not doing it justice with that description: its apparent they have
thought a lot about this.

Anyway, I am copying him here so he can explain in more detail how their
system works.

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 Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Marketply <contact at marketply.org> wrote:

> **
>  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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130319/24a1d911/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list