[Discuss] Misuse of "Open Hardware" term?

[Andrew Back]

On 19 February 2015 at 20:36, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com> 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)

Indeed, "depends on your definition of open source hardware" — and the
accompanying smirk adds insult to injury. I also suspect that there
would be many who might take offence at the suggestion of the limited
capabilities of the "hobbyist with the toaster oven", and he seems to
be willfully ignoring the fact that there are numerous more advanced
designs out there too, with many layer boards, reasonably powerful
32-bit SoCs, FPGAs and RF etc.

That said, it's good to see that the 96boards homepage has been
updated, but the term open hardware is still used elsewhere.

Regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Back
http://carrierdetect.com