[Discuss] Misuse of "Open Hardware" term?

Roy Nielsen amrset at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 14:57:56 UTC 2015

One sticking point is _who_ can make, modify, distribute and use this thing.

ie. MIT, BSD, Apache vs GPL licenses.


On 2/19/2015 10:57 PM, Tsvetan Usunov, OLIMEX Ltd wrote:
> The bottom line is to answer the question: Can I make, modify, 
> distribute, and use this thing?
> If just PDF schematic is available the answer is no and there is no 
> ground for further interpretations :)
> Tsvetan
> On 02/19/2015 10:36 PM, Drew Fustini wrote:
>> 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:
>> http://youtu.be/e8_MatJ_VR0?t=15m30s
>> (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
>> best practices.
>> cheers,
>> drew
>> 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"
>>> https://www.linaro.org/news/linaro-announces-96boards-initiative-accelerate-arm-software-development/ 
>>> 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:
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+gregkroahhartman/posts/LkfitGPTU5h
>>> 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"?
>>> thanks!
>>> drew
>>> http://keybase.io/pdp7
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://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