[Discuss] Documentary on POC21 Open Source Hardware Innovation Camp released
Sam Muirhead
sam at cameralibre.cc
Thu Dec 17 08:08:33 UTC 2015
POC21 was an innovation camp held in a castle near Paris, focused on
developing 12 Open Source Hardware projects for sustainability.
Over the 5 weeks in late summer we had 285 people involved (the average
at any time was 100 people in the castle) from a wide range of
backgrounds and professions.
If you want to catch up on the projects and what happened there, I've
just finished a 60-min documentary about it, watch or download it here:
https://vimeo.com/148839195
On 07.12.2015 13:00, discuss-request at lists.oshwa.org wrote:
> Send discuss mailing list submissions to
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-request at lists.oshwa.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-owner at lists.oshwa.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: keeping the certification discussion going (Antoine C)
> 2. Re: keeping the certification discussion going (Antoine C)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 10:04:54 +0100
> From: Antoine C <smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com>
> To: discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] keeping the certification discussion going
> Message-ID: <56654BB6.3010702 at GMAIL.COM>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Dear Matt,
> and dear all,
>
> What you suggest, Matt, *might* be a great way to see OSHWA
> certification as a non-aggression tool. It seems a smart sideviewing.
>
> Maybe the day OSH concept would be clearly based on licences clearly and
> commonly accepted by strongest FLOSS licensers organizations - ie: by
> OSI, FSF, APACHE, MOZILLA , ... - , when this day appears, it might
> clear everything.
> Maybe, as long as key international expert people in FLOSS licenses
> validation fields, keep claiming that Open Source Hardware is not yet a
> full valid concept, we might keep having difficulty to define safety OSH
> certification.
> See for example,
> https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html talking about
> "functional" hardwares:
> <cite>
> "When one object has decorative aspects and functional aspects, you get
> into tricky ground"
> </cite>
>
> People in hacklabs I meet, still keep sceptical about OSH basis. They
> feel that every thing is not so clear. In one had, they understand that
> they could use licenses, let's say "FSF approved", but not for
> functional things. And in the other hand, they understand that there are
> TAPR and CERN OHLs, but as those licences are not approved by FSF, those
> licences might be not-so-great for all.
> For them, a thing made with atoms, is OSH, when its entire development
> process, and its entire production process, and the possible
> reproduction of future development process and production process, are
> clearly available under a valid licence and freely accessible by the
> net, for the entire upstream and downstream flows.
> If OSHWA certification process, is validated by OSI, FSF, APACHE, etc
> ... for any functional or non-functional things made with atoms, then,
> there might be a highter probability of acceptance by deep FLOS culture
> people.
>
> I don't know if this approach could help.
> If you consider it as a troll, then please, forget it.
>
> Thanks a lot Matt for having relaunch the prolonging of this discussion
> thematic.
>
> Antoine C.
>
>
> Le 05/12/2015 23:57, Matt Maier a ?crit :
>> I put together my thoughts following the last OSHWA
>> hangout. http://www.atthatmatt.com/open-source/open-source-hardware/oshwas-certification-a-stable-opinion-on-open-source-hardware/
>>
>> Summary: OSHWA's Certification is a great way to expand the open source
>> hardware community. It provides a stable opinion on what "open source
>> hardware" means that is low effort and totally optional. The stability
>> will give organizations confidence that they can invest in open source
>> hardware with minimal worry that the standards will change or bad actors
>> will dilute their value. The enforcement part is just there to guarantee
>> the stability. Stability has value so if we want to partake of that
>> value we have to trade something, and in this case it's agreeing to be
>> corrected if we get something wrong.
>>
>> Here's an idea for the mark
>> Inline image 1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 10:04:54 +0100
> From: Antoine C <smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com>
> To: discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] keeping the certification discussion going
> Message-ID: <56654BB6.3010702 at GMAIL.COM>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Dear Matt,
> and dear all,
>
> What you suggest, Matt, *might* be a great way to see OSHWA
> certification as a non-aggression tool. It seems a smart sideviewing.
>
> Maybe the day OSH concept would be clearly based on licences clearly and
> commonly accepted by strongest FLOSS licensers organizations - ie: by
> OSI, FSF, APACHE, MOZILLA , ... - , when this day appears, it might
> clear everything.
> Maybe, as long as key international expert people in FLOSS licenses
> validation fields, keep claiming that Open Source Hardware is not yet a
> full valid concept, we might keep having difficulty to define safety OSH
> certification.
> See for example,
> https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html talking about
> "functional" hardwares:
> <cite>
> "When one object has decorative aspects and functional aspects, you get
> into tricky ground"
> </cite>
>
> People in hacklabs I meet, still keep sceptical about OSH basis. They
> feel that every thing is not so clear. In one had, they understand that
> they could use licenses, let's say "FSF approved", but not for
> functional things. And in the other hand, they understand that there are
> TAPR and CERN OHLs, but as those licences are not approved by FSF, those
> licences might be not-so-great for all.
> For them, a thing made with atoms, is OSH, when its entire development
> process, and its entire production process, and the possible
> reproduction of future development process and production process, are
> clearly available under a valid licence and freely accessible by the
> net, for the entire upstream and downstream flows.
> If OSHWA certification process, is validated by OSI, FSF, APACHE, etc
> ... for any functional or non-functional things made with atoms, then,
> there might be a highter probability of acceptance by deep FLOS culture
> people.
>
> I don't know if this approach could help.
> If you consider it as a troll, then please, forget it.
>
> Thanks a lot Matt for having relaunch the prolonging of this discussion
> thematic.
>
> Antoine C.
>
>
> Le 05/12/2015 23:57, Matt Maier a ?crit :
>> I put together my thoughts following the last OSHWA
>> hangout. http://www.atthatmatt.com/open-source/open-source-hardware/oshwas-certification-a-stable-opinion-on-open-source-hardware/
>>
>> Summary: OSHWA's Certification is a great way to expand the open source
>> hardware community. It provides a stable opinion on what "open source
>> hardware" means that is low effort and totally optional. The stability
>> will give organizations confidence that they can invest in open source
>> hardware with minimal worry that the standards will change or bad actors
>> will dilute their value. The enforcement part is just there to guarantee
>> the stability. Stability has value so if we want to partake of that
>> value we have to trade something, and in this case it's agreeing to be
>> corrected if we get something wrong.
>>
>> Here's an idea for the mark
>> Inline image 1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> End of discuss Digest, Vol 43, Issue 3
> **************************************
>
--
*Sam Muirhead*
/Open Source / Video
http://cameralibre.cc
http://openitagency.eu
http://OSCEdays.org/
More information about the discuss
mailing list