[Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?

Fri Mar 6 19:46:37 UTC 2015

circling back to the letter -- I agree that the tone is a bit
confrontational and that a clear, firmly worded letter directly to the
department at Intel would be more persuasive -- with a list of what needs
to exist before something can be called Open Source Hardware (citing the
OSHW definition).

However, separately, I think it's totally fair to be more aggressive on a
blog post -- an open post like that can really galvanize people in the
broader community and I think lots of people share your frustrations.

I seem to recall a template letter for calling out FOSS violations, but
can't find it. https://www.fsf.org/licensing prefers to handle compliance
discussions themselves and solicits info about companies which they will
contact.

Jeff

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you're looking to support an open source hardware CAD solution then
> check out Mach 30. http://mach30.org/ It's a 501c3 non-profit and one of
> the projects we're supporting is called CADQuery. Here's the latest reports
> hangout (yesterday) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-g3cqyizp8 in which
> we provide an update. The biggest step is probably that CADQuery is now
> integrated into FreeCAD. What we're building is a toolchain for
> programmatic CAD so that, for example, an expert in rocket nozzle design
> can just define the equations, the developer can adjust the parameters,
> then a CAD model is produced automatically. This is the developer's github
> page for CADQuery https://github.com/dcowden/cadquery
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I also "like" this:
>> https://wefunder.com/madesolid
>> We're not saying MadeSolid is Microsoft in 1976. But the industry feels
>> like 1976. Proprietary and vertically integrated systems are being replaced
>> with open platforms, with multiple companies specializing in different
>> parts of the stack. If MadeSolid* locks up IP around new materials that
>> become industry standards, they have a shot at being the dominant player in
>> 3D printing.*
>>
>> Seriously, if this is what investors are looking for, i don't think i
>> could ever talk to one. -.-
>> but they hold a lot of money. maybe there are hippie investors somewhere
>> in the world... like an already-rich version of me >.<
>>
>> ~~~
>> 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 7:52 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, galileo: drop oshw or release altium. edison: fine, never
>>> claimed to be open source.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Digressing as well*
>>> I am hoping as an MIT alum that my letter (with many people's
>>> signatures) will have some clout with solidworks' founderperson and they
>>> will fix their pricing model. even better if they figure out that they can
>>> compete with autodesk 123D for our attention by making an *open-source*
>>> competitor :P
>>>
>>> crowdfund OSS... I did not reaad closely, but this
>>> <http://blog.felixbreuer.net/2013/04/24/crowdfunding-for-open-source.html>
>>>  (2013)
>>>
>>>> Crowdfunding projects need contributions from both rational and
>>>> altruistic backers to raise large amounts of money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> , there is this <https://freedomsponsors.org/> site but seems
>>> ghosttown. yea, i don't think anything exists really. I think in some sense
>>> it's more a one-to-one thing I am hoping for, like poor-mans-philanthropy
>>> rather than masses of hopeful end-users and a developer who might have life
>>> issues and disappear. (i was going to use openshot as example, but he just
>>> reappeared <http://www.openshotvideo.com/?bloglink-header> after a 7
>>> months). idk i think the solution rather is for me to sell out, get rich,
>>> and fund OSS with less care about my hard-earned 10k going to waste :)
>>>
>>> IMHO Big sponsors controlling direction for whatever project is fine,
>>> there are *many* big company sponsored open source software in use
>>> everywhere. Take AngularJS, which was developed on google money and time.
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~
>>> 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 7:21 AM, Mastro Gippo <gipmad at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/c6c2404d/attachment-0001.html>