[Discuss] Misuse of "Open Hardware" term?
pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 20:36:22 UTC 2015
Thanks for the great discussion in this thread. I wanted to follow up
on the Linaro 96boards.org "Open Hardware" issue. I just watched this
talk from LinaroConnect and
I am frustrated by the comment of Linaro CEO George Grey that it
depends on what one's definition of Open Source Hardware is:
(seek to 15min 30sec)
It seems as if his argument is that there a lot of definitions and its
all in the eye of the beholder. I suppose this is an attitude that
OSHWA members come across at times. I take heart in the fact that
OSHWA is committed to raising awareness of the precise definition and
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com> 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"?
More information about the discuss