[Discuss] Misuse of "Open Hardware" term?
ben at phenoptix.com
Wed Feb 11 19:48:09 UTC 2015
Hal, my point is that the gear logo was used at a time when the board files
were not released in any other format than pdf. I understand that they are
now released but the irony of a product passing as open source (although I
would suspect mistakenly) whilst acting as a physical badge for open source
was not lost on me. Second point on gerbers, are they considered source?
Didn't think they were under the OSHWA definition. You can create from
gerbers and even sell but not modify. I may well be wrong (I often am).
Regarding the Pi, it may not claim to be open source hardware but is touted
by media as open source hardware, see examples like this (
Regarding your first statement, it may well be true as to the current OSH
designation but if I tout a product as open source and all I do is publish
the files in paper form in my desk draw then should I be able to call it
open source even if I licence it as CC-BY-SA? This has nothing to do with
the two examples above by the way, just your assertion as to storage
location, up time, availability or ease of finding files.
Ben Gray - Director
On 11 February 2015 at 18:54, Hal F Gottfried <hal at kcohg.org> wrote:
> I believe I am confused, you mention the the Wyolum badgr project uses the
> OSH logo in correctly then you go on to mention you find the files and
> source it was just wasn’t easy. I’m sorry but the storage location, up
> time, availability and ease of finding the files has absolutely nothing to
> do with the OSH designation.
> Now there are quite a bit of people who do, either from lack of
> understanding or lack of scruples, use the logo where it does not belong.
> Let’s take a look at your two sources; the first *Raspberry Pi* , I don’t
> believe the Pi has ever claimed to be an open source device, nor do any of
> the devices pictured online on the physical board itself, are adorn with
> the OSH logo. Where many people get confused here is the *PI, * is
> considered Open Source on the software side and even thought they have
> posted their design files, they have held back several critical notes.
> On to your second statement a misuse of the gear logo on the recent OSH
> badge by Wyolum, first of all the logo on this badge (if you read the print
> below it) is to represent OSHWA, secondly I am not sure how you don’t
> consider this OSH, they have posted the board files, the schematics,
> Gerbers, the code for the board and even design files. These are well
> above what’s need to meet the standard.
> As for including the files for KiCad, they include the Gerbers files which
> is the industry standard.
> I’m aplogize but none of the statements made in your thread are factual,
> they simple are ides … incorrect ideas but you are welcome rot have them of
> *Regards- *
> *Hal F. Gottfried*
> *Co Founder KC Open Hardware Group (KC OSHWA Branch)*
> *Founding Member (via support) OSHWA*
> *Open Hardware Contributor - Redhat - opensource.com
> On Feb 11, 2015, at 3:10 AM, Ben Gray <ben at phenoptix.com> wrote:
> There is a whole lot of spurious use of the term Open Hardware and the
> gear logo gets splashed on just about anything these days, often there is
> an "intention" to open source at sometime in the future.
> It seems that there's still little understanding of what constitutes Open
> Hardware, even to people who follow this list. There are some notable
> products that help muddy the waters by their association with Open
> Hardware, the Raspberry Pi is probably the most notable of them.
> My favourite (and I have no doubt unintentional) misuse of the gear logo
> is on the BADGEr OHW Summit Badge (http://wyolum.com/projects/badger/).
> I've seen the actual board file somewhere (Github maybe) but it wasn't
> available for over three months after the summit if my memory serves
> correctly. I know the Wyolum lot fairly well and they're a great bunch
> committed to the OSHW cause. However given its position in the OSHW
> ecosystem it should probably be easier to find the source files (.brd files
> for KiCad in this case).
> Best Regards
> Ben Gray - Director
> On 11 February 2015 at 06:06, Tsvetan Usunov, OLIMEX Ltd <
> usunov at olimex.com> wrote:
>> Hi Drew
>> OSHW have clear definition, using this term to any board which have PDF
>> schematic will confuse all beginners who have no glue what OSHW is and wear
>> the term value.
>> I think somewhere Massimo Banzi named these projects "Pseudo Open Source
>> Hardware" and "marketing" as these guys know very well what OSHW is but
>> keep using this term intentionally. Same is the situation with many Chinese
>> vendors like Banana, Vocore, etc. They name their projects OSHW then never
>> release anything more than schematic in PDF or JPG format,sometimes with
>> intentional errors inside pretty useless if you want to learn, study,
>> modify and make your own.
>> On 02/11/2015 01:13 AM, Drew Fustini wrote:
>>> Exciting news this week out of the LinaroConnect conference in Hong
>>> Kong about new low-cost ARM 64-bit dev board and the introduction of
>>> 96boards.org. However, I am concerned that Linaro and 96boards are
>>> using "Open Hardware" to describe hardware for which only schematics
>>> are offered. Here are examples:
>>> 1) Press Release states: "96Boards is an open hardware specification"
>>> 2) 96Boards.org website displays in a big font on its homepage: "32-
>>> and 64-bit ARM Open Hardware Boards": https://www.96boards.org/
>>> 3) LinaroConnect Opening Keynote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aAFNCUUVj4 (seek to 42:40)
>>> George Grey, Linaro CEO, explains that they have created an "Open
>>> hardware platform specification"
>>> I have only found schematics on the 96boards.org website, and it does
>>> not appear the PCB board layout or BOM are required to be released for
>>> the 96boards branded products. The first real product, the 8-core ARM
>>> 64-bit HiKey by CircuitCo, offers only a schematic. Social media
>>> conversations with Linaro engineers (who are awesome guys in their own
>>> right) reinforce this assessment:
>>> IN CONCLUSION:
>>> a) Do we as an Open Source Hardware Association care about the term
>>> "Open Hardware"?
>>> b) If so, do we feel that Linaro & 96boards is using the term "Open
>>> Hardware" incorrectly? Is there a less ambiguous way to phrase "Open
>>> hardware platform specification"?
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss