[Discuss] OSHWA perspective on Arduino Yun?

Mario Gómez mxgxw.alpha at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 16:56:42 UTC 2015

Sorry for the double-post. But I faced a simmilar problem when designing a
GPS tracker.

Option 1 was to use the integrated microcontroller on the GPS processor and
being tied to a NDA that prevents me to release any information about it.

Option 2 use a GPS module that only gives NMEA strings that is esentially a
black-box that I solder to my PCB and use an external microcontroller to
process everything.

I decided to choose #2 because even if it's more expensive it allows me to
release full documentation and even considering that I don't know any of
the internal workings of the GPS module that I'm using it doesn't prevent
me or anyone to alter/modify the design.

Which option do you think is in line with the OSHW definition?

It's simply impossible to design someting fully OSHW down to the silicon
level, however you can design it in a way that, even if you are using
modules that are essentially black boxes, it doesn't prevent anyone to
improve or replicate your project (or even replace a black box with
something fully open). The problem is when part of your design MUST be
inside that black box, and I can't think about any good reason why a design
like that could be considered OSHW.


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Mario Gómez <mxgxw.alpha at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Drew!
> If it requires signing a NDA to be reproduced then it's not OSHW.
> A NDA makes impossible to comply with the numeral five of the OSHW
> definition:
> "*5. Free redistribution*
> *The license shall not restrict* any party from selling *or giving away
> the project documentation*. The license shall not require a royalty or
> other fee for such sale. The license shall not require any royalty or fee
> related to the sale of derived works."
> But let's be clear: I'm talking about the agreeded OSHW definition that
> it's available over http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW , there are many
> "definitions" floating around and many interpretations about OSHW means.
> We can discuss for hours what is or not OSHW based on our feelings and
> interpretations. But I think as OSHWA that we have a pretty clear
> definition to follow.
> Regards,
> Mario.
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I deeply respect the Arduino team, and I was surprised to read this
>> Hackaday blog post:
>> "Is The Arduino Yun Open Hardware?"
>> http://hackaday.com/2015/02/24/is-the-arduino-yun-open-hardware/
>> Personally, I have never used the Arduino Yun, and it doesn't seem
>> like it was all that popular.  I'm inclined to just brush this one
>> off, but I'm interested to know what fellow OSHWA members think about
>> this.  It does seem that built-in WiFi is a difficult field to
>> navigate from a OSHW perspective.
>> thanks,
>> drew
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/e37bcc28/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list