[Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?

[Ben Gray]

Plus one to that comment Antoine.

--

Best Regards

Ben Gray - Director



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






On 9 March 2015 at 08:42, Antoine, as a contact of a free smallwindturbine
project <smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hummm ... one possible little question if relevant :
> Q: under which licence is this INTEL "product" delivered ?
>
> From the answer to this question might come the answer to the question
> started with this post, ... maybe ...
>
> Freely,
> Antoine
>
> 2015-03-06 23:55 GMT+01:00 Hunter, Seth E <seth.e.hunter at intel.com>:
>
>>  Please email me directly: seth.e.hunter at intel.com  and I will present
>> these issues to each of the groups managing the projects – I’ve reached out
>> to most of the teams – and will continue to do so over the next four months
>> – the goal being to make sure in future if they call something OSHW that it
>> is – by the OSHWA standards. It makes sense from so many standpoints to do
>> so because their goal is to get more makers using Intel SOC’s and
>> understand that many of these new markets are founded in more accessible
>> dev platforms like arduino.  The reason they are working directly with
>> Arudino is because it’s very difficult to transform and industrial culture
>> that serves OEMs into one serves individual and distributed developers –
>> but I things are shifting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m super sensitive and passionate about this because I come from
>> arts/tech and MIT where most of my work was bolstered by projects like
>> OF/processing/arduino etc.   and learning as I go how influence large orgs.
>> (100K + people)
>>
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org [mailto:
>> discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Ouyang
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 2:17 PM
>>
>> *To:* The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?
>>
>>
>>
>> Basically, I just want them to either stop using OSHW label or release
>> their files. I would prefer if they complied with OSHW, but if they decide
>> to drop the label instead it is no loss to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is what I mean in terms of "possible backlash" -- I would spend time
>> evaluating and promoting their product if it was actually OSHW, and if they
>> are not OSHW then I am not their target customer. Mixing the signals and
>> using OSHW to tell me I might be interested in checking it out, and wasting
>> my time when I discover they lied about being OSHW, will make me want to
>> generate bad press in retaliation.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not being paid to distill customer feedback into actionable business
>> strategy dossiers for them. It's fine if they consider my blog "noise" and
>> ignore it and only pay attention to your thoughtful letter which words it
>> in terms of the business cost to them. It is *only *my loss if it
>> inflames them and they not only drop OSHW label on this one already
>> existing project, but also decide against committing to OSHW over the long
>> term.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am using it to vent and show that other people (presumably in their
>> target market, although as I said I can't really tell due to the mixed
>> signals) agree with me. If someone at Intel who is being paid to market
>> products to us by using words like "arduino" and "open source hardware"
>> can't take our feedback and decide what to do with that, then someone is
>> not doing their job correctly.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not know the difference between free software and open source
>> software. I assume "OSS" is more business-friendly. I don't particularly
>> care and certainly hope that OSHW does not split in a similarly confusing
>> manner (distinguishing "free hardware" vs "open-source hardware" would just
>> be exasperating).
>>
>>
>>      ~~~
>> 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 4:30 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  "What I want to avoid is inflammatory rants directed at large
>> organizations...I’m happy to help convey recommendations in a clear and
>> concise way directly to each of these groups through the Advisory Panel " -
>> Seth
>>
>>
>>
>> "It is good to know Intel has good intentions, however please relay to
>> them that this is *not* getting across...I do not think it will stop me
>> from publishing it in a frustrated and venting tone" - Nancy
>>
>>
>>
>> An important thing to understand about large organizations is that when
>> they "speak" they represent an official, considered opinion that has to
>> work for a lot of people for a long time. The smaller the organization
>> (down to one person) the easier it is to say any old random thing because
>> it's just easier to speak for one person than for lots of people. So, by
>> extension, since that's how large organizations "speak" it's also what
>> they're "listening" for. They don't have any way to use the random opinions
>> of one person, particularly when they're more an expression of emotion than
>> a statement of fact. It's just "noise" because the large organization is
>> "listening" for something that sounds like a reasonable conclusion arrived
>> at after analysis and consensus because that's the only raw material that
>> can be processed through the bureaucracy of a large organization.
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, "open source them or risk backlash" is just noise (at
>> best) to a large organization. Something more like "there is a growing
>> consensus among the Maker community that vendors should only be allowed to
>> setup booths at events after their product is compared to the OSHW
>> definition" would be a lot more likely to find an audience (BTW, I'm not
>> sure if that's true I just made it up as an example). The latter approach
>> sounds like somebody did their research, analyzed their observations, and
>> provided an actionable conclusion. It's something that a person at a large
>> organization might be willing to show their boss.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another example, really the meat of your letter, is exemplified by
>> "anything else someone would need to fork or contribute to your project."
>> This is getting right at the heart of the disconnect which is that large
>> organizations don't understand why they should do that. From their
>> perspective, they have to spend their resources on extra activities that
>> slow down their delivery time AND help their competitors; two things that
>> they know down in their metaphorical bones they should not do. What we need
>> to do in hardware, just as happened in software 10-20 years ago, is
>> gradually introduce large organizations to an alternative way of doing
>> business that is friendlier to our priorities.
>>
>>
>>
>> That exact discussion is what split the free software community in two
>> and produced the open source software community. It's entirely possible
>> that the same basic difference of opinion could split the open source
>> hardware community as some people stick to less-business-friendly
>> priorities and some people adopt more-business-friendly priorities.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we want large organizations, which only understand Business (imagine
>> the capital B wearing a nice suit and staring out over a city skyline), to
>> meet us halfway then we have to give sympathetic parties inside of the
>> large organizations material they can use to gradually sway opinion and
>> eventually justify different investments. It makes more sense to direct the
>> impassioned letters to the community itself and produce more dispassionate
>> letters to direct at large organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Seth, your reporting something more functional to Intel sounds good. I
>> do not understand large corporations at all, and it sounds like you will be
>> more effective at getting these things to happen at Intel. It is good to
>> know Intel has good intentions, however please relay to them that this is *not
>> *getting across, from an outsider perspective all I see is this trend of
>> large corporations co-opting "OSHW" for their own needs (basically,
>> marketing) unrelated to the actual point of OSHW (as demonstrated by the
>> tendency to pay lip service to OSHW and apply the label willy-nilly).
>>
>>
>>
>> I am still going to vent these frustrations on my own blog / whatever and
>> the tone may be confrontational. In your mind, would this letter (openly
>> addressed to them on some random dinky blog but not hand-delivered to them
>> so to speak) still have the detrimental effect of "inflammatory rants
>> directed at large organizations with sarcasm".especially if a lot of
>> people concur with my feelings? I do not think it will stop me from
>> publishing it in a frustrated and venting tone, since I think it is
>> important to voice our frustrations, but I would have to take it into
>> consideration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, please explain to me which part of the letter is coming across as
>> sarcastic. I am not being sarcastic, I am wording sincerely what I feel
>> strongly about, and that appears to be malformed in the written text. I
>> re-read the letter and I mean every single thing on their that I said,
>> although I agree it is not the most political way to word it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Nancy
>>
>>
>>      ~~~
>> 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 3:11 PM, Hunter, Seth E <seth.e.hunter at intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Guys,
>>
>>
>>
>> A small group of us at Intel initiated and Advisory Panel this year to
>> provide resources to decision makers in the product groups that are
>> developing Galileo, Edison, Curie, Minnowboard – if you look at each of
>> these products they are each releasing different documentation formats –
>> one of the goal we have is to try and generate awareness around OSH
>> protocols, and second to put policies in place for future products with
>> clear guidelines. The process to make this happen involves more than letter
>> writing or forum posting – although these do reach folks. IMO its about
>> building trust and understanding through discussion – just as this group
>> has done for years – and to understand the protocols for change within
>> large organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Intel is the largest contributor at the moment to the Linux Foundation –
>> and the culture here is very receptive to transferring many of the open
>> protocols from software to hardware. What I want to avoid is inflammatory
>> rants directed at large organizations with sarcasm – because I want avoid
>> any dismissal of the OSH community and global maker movement – which have
>> great potential to transform manufacturing in the long tail. They want to
>> be an enabler in developer communities – but they are only used to working
>> with OEM developers so this is a new space for the organization.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m happy to help convey recommendations in a clear and concise way
>> directly to each of these groups through the Advisory Panel – as an MIT
>> alum but also as someone who has built some trust with these groups.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------
>> Seth Hunter
>>
>> Research Scientist at Intel Labs
>>
>> -------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org [mailto:
>> discuss-bounces at lists.oshwa.org] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Ouyang
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 4:52 AM
>>
>>
>> *To:* The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150309/413a6fbf/attachment-0001.html>