<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Catarina,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While I agree that there is value in defining which parts/processes of something are open to a high degree of resolution, I'm not sure that anyone other than developers are ever going to use that resolution. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The users won't care how much of a thing is open as long as it works, and they'll never even try to look for the source files. Users won't realize any value from a mark that defines how open a thing is at one of several points along a continuum from 0% to 100%. Maybe if "open" acquires some cultural weight like "green," but that isn't even on the horizon. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Developers, on the other hand, won't have any trouble finding the source files as long as they are actually publically available. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The source files can easily define the exact openess of the project to any relevant degree of resolution. I mean, that's what they're supposed to do anyway. So the developers won't realize any value from the mark itself defining precisely how open the project is either. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>An open mark would be valuable to distinguish the project from the vast majority that are not open, but adding enough detail to precisely define just how open the thing is won't add enough value. The users won't capture any value because they don't care precisely how open the thing is and the developers won't get anything out of it because they're going to go straight to the source files anyway.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And that's not even touching on the fact that open projects are notorious for changing constantly. A single open mark can always apply to a project even if it becomes more or less open over time. An array of open marks specifying different percentages would have to change along with the project. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm not sure if this makes sense, but off the top of my head what if a project includes an FPGA running proprietary IP. Then six months later the project releases their own custom open source IP to replace the proprietary stuff. Now the physical mark on the project isn't giving it credit for being as open as it actually is because the primary software was opened up after the hardware was shipped. It would be possible to have a mark that can be defaced later (like scratching off a dot) but that only captures change in one directly (more open to less open or vice versa).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's entirely possible that I'm missing something, but at the moment I don't see what benefit there is to anything more specific than a mark that just says "something in this project is open source." A possible exception is a special mark that gives the project credit for being entirely open source, to distinguish it from all the projects that are merely partially open.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-Matt</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:26:33 -0500<br>From: Catarina Mota <<a href="mailto:catarina@openmaterials.org">catarina@openmaterials.org</a>><br>
To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List<br> <<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness<br>Message-ID:<br>
<CAH-asVZtQaQsqswJjXXoPWBHtnFpxn422+WmgJvAj22fky-W=<a href="mailto:Q@mail.gmail.com">Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>This is why I was so attracted to Tom's idea of a label that, no matter<br>
where it's placed on the product, tells you right away what parts are open.</blockquote></div>