[Discuss] Proposal: Open Source Hardware Score/Index
contacto at emiliovelis.com
Wed Feb 25 05:50:04 UTC 2015
I remember that Mario also proposed a github layout for OSH documentation.
This would be a good time to review it and turn it into a full package. Do
you have the files, Mario?
El martes, 24 de febrero de 2015, Roy Nielsen <amrset at gmail.com> escribió:
> 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:
> * contributors.jason
> * 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)
> * License
> * Hardware Design Documentation
> * Software Design Documentation & License (if applicable, like firmware)
> * Connectors - if they are open design/interface
> anything else?
> 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
>>>> > To prevent abuse a meta-validation system could be implemented were
>>>> > 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 list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss