[Discuss] Misuse of "Open Hardware" term?

[Mario Gómez]

Why not some kind of "endorsement" system. Something simmilar to what
Linked.in does, your OSHW proyect could be endorsed by other OSHW projects
AND you also can have paid OSHW certifications that it's not more than an
seal of approvation from the OSHWA, anyone that wants to pay could have it.
Taking in consideration that this a certification that the OSHWA gives to a
proyect that request it AFTER being validated by the community and also by
an OSHWA representative.

This way you can have an open-community-based validation program that
doesn't exclude small players and also give the big players this
"marketing" badge to use in their products.

The best practices can be used as a reference to the points to evaluate.
This way if a project follows all the best practices it could have a better
OSHW validation score that one that doesn't. Also is the community that
validates each project not an specific organization.

This could also work as a showcase/directory of different OSHW projects.

And it's cheap... Just hire a developer for a month,  I don't think it
needs to be resource-expensive, you can publish it on a subdomain like "
validated.oshwa.org".

Regards,
Mario.



On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Roy Nielsen <amrset at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please see inline.
>
> On 2/10/2015 5:59 PM, Josh Datko wrote:
>
>> 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[1]. "Open Source Hardware" is defined here:
>> http://www.oshwa.org/definition/
>>
>
> Fine.  If there is only "one" definition, I don't see anyone being willing
> to play by those rules.
>
>  2. This is the cathedral vs. bazaar thing[2]. 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
>> permission.
>>
>
> I understand.  I've been using linux since the mid 90's, and have written
> reports that have referenced that original definition.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I don't necessarily think they would be willing to pay for certification,
> but has anyone asked any hardware vendor?
>
> Yes, it requires funding.  Large companies are often looking for excuses
> to give non-profits money.  My guess is they may be willing or even excited
> to give money to OSHWA, just 'cause they like the idea.
>
> Make them like the idea.  I don't see a narrow minded single definition
> cutting it with hardware vendors.  Someone needs to talk to them.
>
>  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.
>>
>
> Get their buy in.  That's how you do it.  Talk to them.  Ask their
> opinion.  Maybe they have something valuable to contribute besides just
> money(advice, hardware, resources, etc).
>
> Regards,
> -Roy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150211/d21a292c/attachment.html>