[Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?

Fri Mar 6 12:21:57 UTC 2015

Ok, now I see the Solidworks thing, but I think that you will have to take
that matter with MIT, not with SW! :) That is another matter entirely, and
I think that it's one of the main reasons open software usually lags
behind: it's hard to motivate people with anything other than money (and
sex maybe). So you'll get a good open software only if someone pays for
that (but then it hardly remains open), or if a group is completely obsesed
with that and has the right knowledge to make it. That makes me think, if
there are people like you that would give money to develop a project, is
there a crowdfunding website that specializes on free software? The big
problem I see with that, is that big sponsors will want to control the
direction of the development. Well, I'm digressing.

I think I made some confusion on the names; I was thinking about the
Edison. Oddly enough, they don't make open hardware claims on that:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/edison.html
By the way, are we ok with GPS and GSM black boxes and not with Edison? I
think that if Intel released the design files for the Edison's breakout
board, that would put them on par with the Arduino: after all, we don't
have the internal design files for the ATMEGA328 either.
About the Galilelo, they should just drop the OSHW claim and be done with
that (or release files, but I think that's unlikely).

2015-03-06 12:48 GMT+01:00 Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>:

> Hmm, I never got around to finishing it :D thanks for your thoughts.
>
> I would be 100% fine with Intel releasing their Altium files. That would
> meet the agreed definition of OSHW. Altium being hella expensive and the
> non-inter-compatilbility and closed-source world of circuit CAD files is a
> related but separate issue in my opinion.
>
> Okay, what I didn't get around to writing down in a concise manner was
> basically the thought that, with companies like github and tindie, it is
> more okay (altho not ideal) because at least they depend on us as much as
> we depend on them.
>
> re: explaining the backlash, it is kind of rooted in suspicion of how big
> companies will pour time and effort into "new markets", offer *closed
> source *products, and those projects can get axed on a whim because
> business people decided the "risky new venture" did not end up making money
> for the shareholders/CEO. So I think that it is *very* not ideal for
> Autodesk to spend hella money on a closed-source 123D, it can become better
> than current open-source tools for teachers / education, everyone will
> adopt it, and then 10 years later when they graduate they are in a world of
> pain. Or 2 years later Autodesk can stop hosting 123D and axe the project,
> and everyone will have useless files they can't do anything with, or worse
> their designs are just gone.
>
> That is where solidworks comes in. I graduated from MIT, which gets plyed
> with hella free Solidworks because it was cofounded by some MIT alum, and
> trying to pay for solidworks after graduating made me exceptionally
> unhappy.*
>
> I do admit I probably have an anti-big-corporation streak after doing my
> 1120s for my startup as well. :o I am not sure I could remove that bent and
> still feel inspired to write this piece. It seems more like a factual
> statement of the fact that there is backlash, to me.
>
>
> * I would be in fact be willing to donate half my income this year so that
> someone suitably talented could work on an open-source alternative to
> solidworks full-time. parametric CAD and also a more sculpty option
> (perhaps built on wings 3d). that is how important it is. sadly i don't
> have the technical chops nor willpower to work on one thing for that long
> to do it myself.
>
>
> ~~~
> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
> scaling your analyses)
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Mastro Gippo <gipmad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody, I'm all in for OSHW and I hate anyone using the image of a
>> community to promote stuff, but I didn't like the tone of the letter. I
>> don't think that threatening people is a good way to get what we want. From
>> what I see here, no one batted an eye when people agreed that GPS, GSM and
>> all sort of modules are ok to use on OSHW designs, even if they are black
>> boxes, but now we're bashing Intel for the same thing.
>> I think that even if Intel released their Altium design files, they would
>> still be borderline compliant because Altium is commercial, so why bother?
>> Sure, they could have designed it with kicad, but IMHO kikad is not
>> complete enough for Intel's (industrial) designs (or else everyone would
>> use it and Altium would go bankrupt).
>> So, given the GPS module "agreement", I think that Intel could just
>> release the docking boards design files to be able to say that they are
>> compliant.
>> I don't understand the point of the footnote either; what's the matter
>> with Solidworks in this discussion??? Am I missing something? Aren't they
>> free to make a commercial product and sell it?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-06 4:42 GMT+01:00 Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org>:
>>
>>> +1 w Nancy and +1 letter!
>>>
>>> (Hi Seth!)
>>>  On Mar 5, 2015 8:23 PM, "Nancy Ouyang" <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Re: Galileo, Why can't they just stay away from the words "open source
>>>> hardware"? I don't understand what's so blinking hard about that.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with Edison being closed-source and Intel protecting something
>>>> they spent a lot of resources on. That's because they* don't claim
>>>> it's open source hardware*.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I'm drafting a letter. I'm working on etherpad and will ask for
>>>> help editing soon.
>>>> http://etherpad.mit.edu/p/oshw-may-2015
>>>>
>>>> ~~~
>>>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>>>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
>>>> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>>>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>>>> scaling your analyses)
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Hunter, Seth E <seth.e.hunter at intel.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hi Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the Edison Source files they provide:
>>>>> http://www.intel.com/support/maker/edison.htm   The Edison unit is
>>>>> closed – but everything around it should be well documented. I think the
>>>>> reason is that the SOC and Edison package is a 9 layer board and the
>>>>> Tangier team spent a long time turning a mobile phone SOC and the Broadcom
>>>>> Wifi/Bluetooth into a small unit that could be integrated with products in
>>>>> a modular way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I want to figure out is if you can convert an Allegro and Orcad
>>>>> files into a format that makers can work with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding Galileo here is what I could find:
>>>>>
>>>>> Galileo gen 1:
>>>>> https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/galileo/documentation/galileodocuments
>>>>>
>>>>> Galileo gen 1 reference design:
>>>>> http://downloadmirror.intel.com/24514/eng/Galileo%20Reference%20Design.zip
>>>>> (its in a format called brd)
>>>>>
>>>>> Galileo gen 2:
>>>>> https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/galileo/documentation/intel-galileo-gen-2-development-board-documents
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What’s weird is that at one point I downloaded the board files for
>>>>> Galileo Gen 1 to try and understand if makers/developers could use them to
>>>>> go to product with the Quark SOC – and they were on the web and easy to
>>>>> find.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t work directly with the software groups that make these boards
>>>>> but I’ve gotten to know their org fairly well. We are trying to find a way
>>>>> to gently push them towards OSH standards. If folks can send me feedback
>>>>> about this I’ll gather it together to see where these products are with
>>>>> regard to the checklists – I’m not sure if anyone has ever done this… but
>>>>> it would be useful to present that information to the right people and I
>>>>> know the right channels I think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth Hunter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> Seth Hunter
>>>>> PhD, MIT Media Lab - Research Scientist at Intel Labs
>>>>>
>>>>> website <http://www.perspectum.com/>  |  inspiration
>>>>> <http://arplay.tumblr.com/> |  life
>>>>> <http://flickr.com/photos/sethismyfriend/>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org [mailto:
>>>>> discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Ouyang
>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2015 4:39 PM
>>>>> *To:* The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry, the galileo. i couldn't figure out from the web if Intel claims
>>>>> edison is open-source or not, but a friend told me it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      ~~~
>>>>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>>>>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
>>>>> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>>>>>
>>>>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>>>>> scaling your analyses)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/galileo-maker-quark-board.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Providing users with a fully open source hardware* and software
>>>>> development environment, the Intel Galileo Gen 2 board complements and
>>>>> extends the Arduino line of product
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 clicks in all I found was a PDF of the schematic.
>>>>> http://www.intel.com/support/galileo/sb/CS-035168.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While better than nothing, that certainly doesn't fulfill the
>>>>> definition:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The hardware must be released with documentation including design
>>>>> files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. "
>>>>>
>>>>> "These are the original source files that you would use to make
>>>>> modifications to the hardware’s design. *The act of sharing these
>>>>> files is the core practice of open-source hardware*."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.oshwa.org/definition/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just checking if someone knows better than me what's going on here.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~~~
>>>>> narwhaledu.com, educational robots
>>>>> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
>>>>> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
>>>>>
>>>>> arvados.org (open source software for provenance, reproducing, and
>>>>> scaling your analyses)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150306/0691a729/attachment-0001.html>