[Discuss] Misuse of "Open Hardware" term?
jbd at cryptotronix.com
Wed Feb 11 00:59:53 UTC 2015
1. Whether or not you like GNU, this is one of the reasons RMS is
pedantic about terminology. AFAIK, "open hardware" has no agreed upon
definition. "Open Source Hardware" is defined here:
2. This is the cathedral vs. bazaar thing. The cathedral style is
to have a certification program, much like the FSF's Respect Your
Freedom certification. The Bazaar style is the OSI model where
individuals pick an OSI approved license w/o asking anybody's
I do think companies *would* pay to receive a certification b/c they
believe in OSHW. But this leaves the individual maker on Tindie, who
might be following all the rules better than some
companies/organizations in a pickle. Maintaining the database of
registered OSHW takes effort as well and that effort requires funding.
How to get people to play by the rules? I don't know. The FSF
continuously tries to get people to say "GNU\Linux" and as a FSF
paying member, I'll put myself on report in that I'm not consistent
with the term. I think getting people onboard with saying "Open Source
Hardware" vs "Open Hardware" will take some education. Which I do
think OSHWA is very actively doing.
 I did google "open hardware" and there were links, circa 2011,
talking about the release of the "open source hardware" definition
 With apologies to ESR for bending his analogy to fit my use-case.
More information about the discuss