[Discuss] is intel edison open-source hardware?

Mon Mar 9 12:56:52 UTC 2015

I don't know, concretely speaking it might be easier to fork and modify
from the schematic pdf than altium files, but oshw is a binary label that's
clearly defined now: original design files.  There's no "halfway oshw
rounds to fully oshw" deal. Hopefully this oshw definition leads to an
improvement in the state of circuit cad.
On Mar 9, 2015 5:03 AM, "Ben Gray" <ben at phenoptix.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150309/4526cc19/attachment-0001.html>