[Discuss] Proposal: Open Source Hardware Score/Index

Ben Gray ben at phenoptix.com
Wed Feb 25 07:55:54 UTC 2015


Although I like the idea of an index, it seems to be enough of a problem
(even on this list) to recognise what constitutes Open Source Hardware or
not. I feel that adding an index or score could muddy the waters even more.
However it could add to understanding if the compliance elements are
stressed and failure underlined rather than a low score given.

--

Best Regards

Ben Gray - Director



www.phenoptix.com
twitter.com/phenoptix
plus.google.com/+phenoptix






On 25 February 2015 at 07:16, Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org> wrote:

> So one thing I like about the contrib.json file is that it'd have a BOM
> requirement with potentially optional things like prices, links for where
> to buy materials, etc.
>
> I had some ideas (talking with RJ Steinert
> <http://publiclab.org/profile/rjstatic> of Farm Hack) about how a more
> Bower- or NPM-style utility could parse such files... these are just
> roughly sketched out ideas -- say we called it "newt":
>
>    - newt init -- would run a text-based questionnaire to generate
>    contrib.json file
>    - newt compile bom -- aggregate/merge BOMs of nested projects
>    - newt compile bom <string> -- aggregate/merge BOMs with links
>    matching provided string like "digikey.com"
>    - newt compile price <int> -- calculate unit price for int units
>    - newt compile contributors -- compile contributors of nested projects
>    - newt register -- makes searchable, tests for presence of req'd docs,
>    clones repos or zips
>
> Updated my post in the comments here, where there's also been some
> discussion about versioning:
> http://publiclab.org/notes/warren/02-24-2015/standardizing-open-source-hardware-publication-practices-with-contributors-json#c11215
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Roy Nielsen <amrset at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> 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 . .
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Roy
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Pablo Kulbaba <pablokulbaba at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  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
>>> certification.
>>>
>>> PD: Had to search JSON.
>>>
>>> On 24/02/2015 08:00 p.m., Mario Gómez wrote:
>>>
>>>  @jeff:
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>> @Javier:
>>>
>>>  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
>>> projects.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mario.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://publiclab.org/notes/warren/02-24-2015/standardizing-open-source-hardware-publication-practices-with-contributors-json
>>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>>
>>>>  Best,
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Javier Serrano <Javier.Serrano at cern.ch
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 [1] proposes. See also the work of the Wikimedia
>>>>> Foundation [2] 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Javier
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.ohanda.org/
>>>>> [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at lists.oshwa.orghttp://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PabloK
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150225/aa28e0ff/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list