[Discuss] interview with Andrew "Bunnie" Huang
blueback09 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 15:45:45 UTC 2014
You're welcome. I think the most interesting part is Huang's implied
endorsement of a working definition for "open" in a hardware context.
"*I have only pushed one layer down of openness, namely, into the circuit
card assembly design. It's the one and only piece that I personally have
full control over and have the full freedom to choose to make open*."
This, to me, is a great start at resolving the seemingly never-ending
arguments over whether or not a hardware project is "open." As long as the
developers have released all of THEIR work according to the open source
hardware definition, then the project would be open. If the developer
doesn't have control over it then it should be irrelevant to determining
Additionally, if it's not part of the hardware, it should also be
irrelevant to the definition. Business processes are not addressed by the
open source hardware definition. A developer would only have to release the
hardware designs, not the way they manage logistics, for example.
I'm not claiming that Huang said that, I just think his approach
illustrates an ideal case of a functional resolution to the argument over
what is/is-not open source hardware.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Pablo Kulbaba <pablokulbaba at gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks for sharing, Matt.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss