[Discuss] OSHW & Economics

Fri Nov 22 07:53:10 UTC 2013

I'm loving the discussion so far. Here's my take on it.

Compared to FLOSS, Open Hardware solutions are weak in terms of a legal
framework, because a) it's too new to exist a consensus among the
community, and b) we haven't seen a uniform response from the manufacturing
market. However, Mario and I have seen the extent to which "legal piracy"
can trump the development of OSHW in the case of Arduinos. He and I
organized a small workshop about open electronics in San Salvador, and one
of the things we discussed was the fact that many people had shown us
replicas of the piece that were made in China (they're terrible, by the
way). I assume all of you can think of similar situations where other
hardware solutions with good market presence have already been copied and
are being manufactured by a fraction of the cost. Why should there be any
worries? I can think of a couple of factors to take into consideration:

1. OSHW solutions aren't being usually patented because patents aren't
considered useful compared to copyright. We're yet to see patent trolls who
would be interested on taking advantage of the fact that patents are
enforced regionally, into patenting in other countries and making things
difficult for startups trying to broaden their community. Why isn't this
considered a problem? Because most popular OSHW solutions are currently
imported from big countries with healthy communities that can document and
easily prove prior art. However, what if patent trolls start protecting
inventions made in El Salvador under US jurisdiction, for example? That
would hinder innovation coming from small economies, for sure. I see three
feasible solutions for this: one is to create standards for documentation
in such a way that physical creations cannot be made without infringing
copyright (perhaps in the realm of fashion and design of useful objects it
could be possible). The second would be to make sure that Open Hardware
entities in different countries replicate solutions as soon as possible in
order to claim prior art as soon as worldwide members create them (3D
printing and Fablabs can make this a reality). The third would be to patent
inventions in many countries at once.

2. The set of those said 'associated services' to OSHW hasn't yet been
clarified for startups or new communities to count on them. We still have
to think of distribution, customer support and even manufacturing in some
cases. Future OSHW solutions will need accuracy that the local 3D printers
may not be able to achieve, or materials that aren't available. There will
be times when open source communities will have to face already-existing
monopolies (or local governments, other non-open communities) in order to
obtain materials, technology or support. Sometimes we will have to hire the
Chinese to lower manufacturing costs. This is where even Open Source must
have a moral agenda (albeit not as strict as for Free/Libre-lovers). Open
hardware will need a broad definition in the meantime, but is also in the
need of a definition of what isn't open. There will be times when future
startups will embrace openness as part of their mindset, but their products
will not be considered open in order to make them economically viable.

That's only on the top of my mind for now.

--By the way: Congratulations, Catarina!
https://www.facebook.com/OpenSourceEcology/posts/10152404988136562

On 21 November 2013 13:40, Andrew Stone <stone at toastedcircuits.com> wrote:

> I produce an OSHW board.  This board was purchased by many people
> including one who turned out to be a interior designer for a major European
> luxury automotive manufacturer.  He has hired me several times over the
> past 2+ years to produce major hardware and software variations on the
> board.  I had the opportunity to bid on series development but the feature
> was postponed...  All hardware and library software that I produced for
> this company has remained BSD licensed; the only proprietary code is is the
> top level Arduino sketch (and I essentially get to define what this "top"
> level is :-)).
>
> These solutions were presented to the CEO and board of directors as part
> of internal concept car reviews.
>
> We did it in about 1/2 the time and 1/10th the cost of a proprietary
> commercial solution.  Even at 1/10th the cost, this work represented an
> order of magnitude more money than I need to pursue whatever other OSHW
> hobby projects I might envision for the next 10 years or so.
>
> I have had several other people approach me for other work some I accepted
> some not.
>
> So OSHW is also advertising...
>
> Cheers!
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Marketply <contact at marketply.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On November 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM Javier Serrano <Javier.Serrano at cern.ch>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I can only speak for our case at CERN BE-CO-HT. We were more inspired by
>> > Free Software than by Open Source Software. The only reason we don't
>> > call our stuff "Free Hardware" is that it's even more misleading than
>> > "Free Software". The "free" in "Free Software" is of course about
>> > freedom (not price), a subject which is not the main focus in Open
>> > Source. Both stands are respectable, of course, and we feel at ease in
>> > both families, but one thing is for sure: the choice of the word "free"
>> > has caused endless confusion. Even if you are aware of what the "free"
>> > in Free Software means, as I am sure you are, it's too damn easy to fall
>> > into the trap of talking about "free beer" when criticizing Free
>> > Software, as you just did in the preceding paragraph.
>>
>>
>> We can change it from 'free' to 'freed' and problem solved.
>>
>>  It can't get confused as much for free beer. And much easier to tie to
>> the liberty of using something.
>>
>>  'Freed' even has more advantages: it's seems more *active* when we read
>> it, as if the mere labeling with the word is saying " *this has been
>> freed, yet there await more software and hardware to be freed*". Like a
>> conquered challenge! And a call to action for more! Freed software. Freed
>> hardware. Technology freed open. Also freeing creative content.
>>
>>  The word is unifying across all of free culture. Including all knowledge
>> in the public domain freed of law and restrictions.
>>
>>  OpenPlex is an (upcoming) open-source technology park that will use the
>> word 'Freedware' to the effect of unifying all open technology: software,
>> hardware, firmware under one open banner. A trademark for all people in the
>> marketplace – buyers and sellers – to rest assured that freed goods are
>> really true to their licenses (OSHW, GPL, MPL, MIT, Apache, etc).
>>
>>  And will invite the licensors to collaborate openly with its community
>> (and drive compatibility between licenses?). As OpenPlex will strive to be
>> the most transparent company in the world, distributed globally, sharing
>> its knowledge in real time universally, and empowering its community to
>> veto any major decision that people feel runs counter to the company's core
>> principles.
>>
>>
>>
>> On November 20, 2013 at 3:48 PM Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  Implicit in Stallman's argument (quoted above) is that a "free as in
>> speech" program, once created, can be implemented by anyone at little-to-no
>> cost. Giving away the IP rights to code dramatically reduces the "beer"
>> costs for everyone else.
>>
>>
>>  The free software project doesn't give away rights, they work under
>> copyright law to license rights.
>>
>>
>> On November 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It doesn't actually undermine the goals of the open source community. If
>> the problem solution is stable, then it's appropriate to mass produce it.
>> However, mass production usually requires making changes to the design,
>> which will not be supported by the community if they're not open sourced by
>> the manufacturer. So, the community will continue chugging along.
>> Individual inventors might feel slighted, or even taken advantage of, but
>> "open source" specifically does not provide the same individual protections
>> that "proprietary" does. The power and protection is based in the
>> community, not in any one individual.
>>
>>  People who don't understand that are going to get their feelings hurt,
>> but it's the same as misunderstanding anything else. If someone wants
>> individual protection they should go get a patent, rather than try to
>> squeeze personal rights back into "open source" when they were given up on
>> purpose.
>>   .....
>>
>>   Well...they probably don't call what they're selling "open source."
>> Even if they did, the structure of "open source" prevents any attempt to
>> use the law to stop them. The whole point of "open source" is that the
>> inventor gives away most of the rights to their intellectual property,
>> including the right to make money off of it. People who "open source"
>> things shouldn't be surprised when someone else does exactly the things
>> they were permitted to do.
>>
>>
>>   No one in open source gives away rights. They enjoy the same full
>> copyright protections as proprietary does. The license merely makes it
>> easier to share the copyrighted material and specifically requires certain
>> things like licensing any changes under the same license and including the
>> source files. The license is legally binding.
>>
>>  If that is incorrect, someone please chime in.
>>
>>  Cheers!
>>
>> 😃,
>>
>>  Marino Hernandez
>> (just a founder of Marketply <http://www.marketply.org>)
>> 203-429-4205
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20131122/c6d8212d/attachment-0001.html>