[Discuss] Proposal: Open Source Hardware Score/Index
amrset at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 00:35:38 UTC 2015
One possibility would be to require a "BOM" or bill of materials that is
required for an OSHWA certified design. Perhaps something like the
following for an embedded board:
* Project BOM - in the part descriptions - includes whether a part is open
source or closed source
(ie processors, complex chips, etc)
* Schematics list - including descriptions & if the schematics are
modifiable (ie, not pdf)
* Hardware Design Documentation
* Software Design Documentation & License (if applicable, like firmware)
* Connectors - if they are open design/interface
Score could possibly be based on what of the above is available . .
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Pablo Kulbaba <pablokulbaba at gmail.com>
> On the validation via a community or a specific group of people, maybe
> the initial open community can provide a seedstock to raise educated people
> to form a later trusted group of people that gives an ulterior
> PD: Had to search JSON.
> On 24/02/2015 08:00 p.m., Mario Gómez wrote:
> That's great! It can even work both ways: If you already have a JSON you
> can provide the URL to automatically calculate the indicator for your
> project and vice versa: if you complete the questionnaire it could
> automatically generate the JSON file that you can include in your project
> as you propose that would be easy to do.
> Sadly I'm a little busy this week but let me see if I can program a
> functional prototype so we can experiment how it could work for the next
> month. (I would not mind if someone else wants to help)
> I personally like the idea of the community, because if the process is
> straight forward, verifiable and transparent what matters is the result of
> the evaluation system and not the person/group of persons doing the
> evaluation. This is assuming that the evaluation system provides means to
> minimize/prevent abuses (That's why I consider important to also
> implementing a meta-evaluation system).
> However... being certified from a trusted group of people it's really
> important and I think that the OSHWA could be an appropriate group to do
> that. But let's hear more opinions, I think that it's possible to build
> something simple that helps people to follow the OSHW philosophy in their
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org>
>> I really like this idea!
>> Somewhat related is this idea from chatting with Alicia Gibb a few
>> months ago, of a contributors.json file which would fulfill (with links,
>> short descriptions, etc) all the terms of the OSH definition.
>> I finally typed up the idea and our sample format here:
>> Love to hear input. Perhaps the questionnaire could generate such a
>> file. At Public Lab, it'd be interesting for the file to be auto-generated
>> from our tool wiki pages. The nice part about it is that it's not
>> specifying a way of browsing or aggregating projects (as other folks are
>> exploring that space) but specifies a standard way to make the
>> relevant/required information available for such projects to
>> scrape/consume. Also, it's easy enough to write by hand and include in a
>> github repository.
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Javier Serrano <Javier.Serrano at cern.ch>
>>> Mario, I think this is a great idea. I see this can play a role in the
>>> solution to one of the biggest problems of OSHW: how to make sure
>>> developers have more incentives to publish their work. Economic
>>> incentives in particular. An OSHW label could give (more) prestige to
>>> developers who hold it and induce purchaser-driven growth of OSHW. We
>>> are already seeing that prestige is a big element in the success of OSHW
>>> companies. A well advertised and supported label or mark could enlarge
>>> the population of savvy customers.
>>> On 02/24/2015 05:58 PM, Mario Gómez wrote:
>>> > The idea is that the community validates if you are telling the truth.
>>> > To prevent abuse a meta-validation system could be implemented were you
>>> > can "evaluate the evaluators" to see if their are being fair on their
>>> > evaluations.
>>> One alternative is to entrust the OSHWA with that role. "Community" is a
>>> vague term. If I have to trust someone on whether a piece of software is
>>> free software I will trust the FSF over the "community" any day. One way
>>> of doing it would be through a creative use of marks or labels, in the
>>> vein of what OHANDA  proposes. See also the work of the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation  in this regard. In this scenario, developers have a
>>> natural incentive to not misuse the mark, because they can be sued with
>>> all the arsenal of trademark law if they do.
>>>  http://www.ohanda.org/
>>>  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> discuss mailing listdiscuss at lists.oshwa.orghttp://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss