[Discuss] EOMA68 Libre Hardware Standard and Libre Software project, currently crowd-funding (deadline expires 26th aug 2016)

[Wouter Tebbens]

El 23 de agosto de 2016 00:22:13 CEST, "lkcl ." <luke.leighton at gmail.com> escribió:
>hiya paul (et al) having opened up the debate i've realised i'm going
>to have to leave it to you all to discuss further, some specific
>answers below
>
>On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Paul Bristow <paul at panglosslabs.org>
>wrote:
>> But wait a minute.  I was involved in the OSWHA process and that is
>simply not the issue being addressed.  Saying that something is
>certified as Open Source Hardware has *nothing whatsoever* to do with
>any of the other certifications you may have to legally comply with
>when you sell a product.  In the EU, you have to CE mark a product you
>want to sell, which means a product complies to all applicable
>legislation.  Similar in the US and other jurisdictions.  The company
>selling the product is liable for it - particularly for any safety
>problems.  Self-certifying that a product complies with a certification
>process cannot possibly have the consequences you claim.
>
> ... are you absolutely sure?  i can think of a very simple scenario
>which does not require CE marks: home-produced equipment where either
>the instructions are place online (makezine, instructables) or the
>actual "results" sold online and people are invited to place the
>"OSHWA" logo on it after they've built one, or the person working out
>of their home selling home-grown "kits" places the OSHWA label on it.
>
> that bypasses all of the CE mark and other safety requirements in a
>*distributed* way that makes it impossible to go after "a Corporation"
>as you might expect to be able to do.
>
>
> i could probably think up some other likely and plausible scenarios
>given enough time, but just the one is enough.
>
> > In short, the OSHWA tries to solve one problem.  It does not
>attempt to solve the issue of product safety which has its own
>legislation for different types of products.
>
> .... but does it specifically state, "you shall take full legal
>responsibility for Safety Certifications and shall NOT be permitted to
>add an OSHWA logo if you have not sought such Certificates and carried
>out such testing as required" and other such additions that cover the
>nightmare scenarios?
The idea of such clause seems very relevant to me, but this particular version would precisely exclude the home built kit project (!) I think we'll not want to force seeking CE certification on projectd that won't legally be required to have that.

Another thing would be to require people to make the appropriate warnings to avoid cases of negligence. Anyone has the so called "duty of care".

BTW I enjoy a debate on the defitions, ethics and practicalities every now and then. As long as we avoid flamewars I think it can be pedagogical and good to reflect on it, at least "internally".

I'm like Paul Bristow that I see the terms as synonyms but with slightly different connotations, as synonyms tend to have slight differences. In my case though I intent to emphasise the freedoms being the defining criteria ;-)

>
>> Collaboratively, because I really like your project

Me too, finally participated in the crowdsupply last week or so. Good work!

Best,
>
> thx :)
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.