[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 77

[malcolm stanley]

sorry, correcting the email address...

_________________________________________
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 5:06 PM, malcolm stanley <
a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:

> All
>
> 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/20130319/62a4aca3/attachment.html>