[Discuss] Favorite OSHW Linux computers?

Wouter Tebbens wouter at freeknowledge.eu
Thu Feb 5 15:10:33 UTC 2015

Dear Hal,

I was not referring to their reference to "open source", which they only
seem to use when referring to the operating systems that run on the board.

But they do claim "its open hardware comes with full schematics and
layout". (at http://www.solid-run.com/products/hummingboard/)

Given there's no license information, it can't be rightly called "open
hardware".  That confuses people and is incorrect, as you also point
out. Now I don't know the status of Bruce's "open hardware"
registration, as it seems he stopped with the "open hardware
certification". Anyone?



On 02/05/2015 03:49 PM, Hal Gottfried wrote:
> I see a couple problems with that my friends (hola Pdp7).  The first and
> formost we all need to understand what makes Open Hardware "open" is the
> license model the choose and the adherence to it. 
> For example company A makes widgets and exclaims "we are open source";
> however even though they release their plans and designs and such they
> stick a little note at the bottom "commercialization requires purchasing
> a license".  That there removes that ability to call this project Open.
>  Let's say that same company simply releases everything they are
> "required to" into the wild but requires attribution to be listed on
> derived works (as the original company has a trademarked name). This is
> still under the OS license model and is acceptable. 
> (See my article on Red Hat's Open Source next week where I talk licenses).
> Let's play Devils advocate here for a minute, and say this company
> doesn't require commercial licenses, doesn't care about attribution if
> you market a similar project BUT when the release their source (Eagle
> Files, documentation, examples and such) they leave out a crucial piece.
>  The leave out very specific and detailed signal timing diagrams or
> pseudocode to  illustrate for a software developer how to use his code
> to work with the interface in operation. This too becomes "closed
> source" now as all details of the component must be available. 
> I could give you quite a bit more but I want to keep this short.  There
> are quite a few places that believe they are open source and try to
> market themselves that way.  As a community it is our responsibility to
> educate companies and consumers around correct and best practices.  If
> you read through either the CERN or TAPR license you'll see there's not
> really much you can do if they violate the license (pay attention to the
> "hold harmless" section).
> Finally as to your comment that we should inform them they are
> infringing on a trademark; Bruce purchased the trademark in the late 90s
> in an effort to help grow the open source software initiative and hoping
> to get the ability to have some "punishment" built in for violators of a
> license model. However it was pretty much focused on Debian and Ubuntu
> at the time.  In 1999 he assigned the mark to Eric Raymond (Open Source
> Initiative) to help be used in their educational and outreach.  That
> being said a trademark is a license on a MARK or design say a logo for
> example. 
> There are such things as "Slogan Marks" and a few various other types.
>  The point is the reference you're making is to the term as it applies
> to their use in a whole different context (the trademark registered has
> "OPEN SOURCE" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN" (which appears to also have
> been renewed as there are only two trademarks for Bruce and only one is
> active and it doesn't pertain to this).
> Anyway there's not really a lot we can do at this juncture but publish
> it and tell people, but make sure to do your due diligence and see if a
> part has been released correctly.
> Hal Gottfried 
> Cofounder KC Open Hardware (an OSHWA branch)
> OpenSource.com Contributor 
> Apologies if this message is brief as it's sent from my phone.
> _____________________________
> From: Wouter Tebbens <wouter at freeknowledge.eu
> <mailto:wouter at freeknowledge.eu>>
> Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 6:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Favorite OSHW Linux computers?
> To: <discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>>
> Hi Drew and all,I have heard about the HummingBoard, [1], which states
> it is "openhardware", but I cannot find the license, not even on its
> wiki, [2].If they really aren't adhering to the definition of open
> hardware, maybewe should warn them that "open hardware" is a registered
> trademark byBruce Perens (if he is still the owner). In any case, ask
> them topublish under a free license or to stop confusing people.[1]
> http://www.solid-run.com/products/hummingboard/[2]
> http://wiki.solid-run.com/HummingBoard_HardwareBTW notice also the USB
> Armory,http://www.inversepath.com/usbarmory.html#usbarmory_flat-tab that
> isopen hardwarebest,WouterOn 02/04/2015 06:38 PM, Drew Fustini wrote:>
> There's a *lot* of press right now about a new proprietary single> board
> computer. I thought it might be fun to talk about Open Source> Hardware
> alternatives.> > Here's my favorite OSHW Linux computers. What are
> yours?> > MinnowBoard MAX (dual 64-bit Intel Atom):>
> http://www.minnowboard.org/meet-minnowboard-max/> > Olimex OlinuXino
> LIME2:>
> https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/A20/A20-OLinuXIno-LIME2/open-source-hardware>
>> Radxa Rock:> http://radxa.com/Rock> > BeagleBone Black:>
> http://beagleboard.org/black> > > cheers,> drew> http://keybase.io/pdp7>
> _______________________________________________> discuss mailing list>
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>>
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss>
> _______________________________________________discuss mailing
> listdiscuss at lists.oshwa.orghttp
> <mailto:listdiscuss at lists.oshwa.orghttp>://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list