<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>I'm loving the discussion so far. Here's my take on it.<br><br></div>Compared to FLOSS, Open Hardware solutions are weak in terms of a legal framework, because a) it's too new to exist a consensus among the community, and b) we haven't seen a uniform response from the manufacturing market. However, Mario and I have seen the extent to which "legal piracy" can trump the development of OSHW in the case of Arduinos. He and I organized a small workshop about open electronics in San Salvador, and one of the things we discussed was the fact that many people had shown us replicas of the piece that were made in China (they're terrible, by the way). I assume all of you can think of similar situations where other hardware solutions with good market presence have already been copied and are being manufactured by a fraction of the cost. Why should there be any worries? I can think of a couple of factors to take into consideration:<br>
<br></div>1. OSHW solutions aren't being usually patented because patents aren't considered useful compared to copyright. We're yet to see patent trolls who would be interested on taking advantage of the fact that patents are enforced regionally, into patenting in other countries and making things difficult for startups trying to broaden their community. Why isn't this considered a problem? Because most popular OSHW solutions are currently imported from big countries with healthy communities that can document and easily prove prior art. However, what if patent trolls start protecting inventions made in El Salvador under US jurisdiction, for example? That would hinder innovation coming from small economies, for sure. I see three feasible solutions for this: one is to create standards for documentation in such a way that physical creations cannot be made without infringing copyright (perhaps in the realm of fashion and design of useful objects it could be possible). The second would be to make sure that Open Hardware entities in different countries replicate solutions as soon as possible in order to claim prior art as soon as worldwide members create them (3D printing and Fablabs can make this a reality). The third would be to patent inventions in many countries at once.<br>
<br></div>2. The set of those said 'associated services' to OSHW hasn't yet been clarified for startups or new communities to count on them. We still have to think of distribution, customer support and even manufacturing in some cases. Future OSHW solutions will need accuracy that the local 3D printers may not be able to achieve, or materials that aren't available. There will be times when open source communities will have to face already-existing monopolies (or local governments, other non-open communities) in order to obtain materials, technology or support. Sometimes we will have to hire the Chinese to lower manufacturing costs. This is where even Open Source must have a moral agenda (albeit not as strict as for Free/Libre-lovers). Open hardware will need a broad definition in the meantime, but is also in the need of a definition of what isn't open. There will be times when future startups will embrace openness as part of their mindset, but their products will not be considered open in order to make them economically viable.<br>
<br></div>That's only on the top of my mind for now.<br><br></div>--By the way: Congratulations, Catarina! <a href="https://www.facebook.com/OpenSourceEcology/posts/10152404988136562">https://www.facebook.com/OpenSourceEcology/posts/10152404988136562</a><br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 21 November 2013 13:40, Andrew Stone <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stone@toastedcircuits.com" target="_blank">stone@toastedcircuits.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>I <span>produce an OSHW board. This board was purchased by many people including one who turned out to be a interior designer for a major European luxury automotive manufacturer. He has hired me several times over the past 2+ years to produce major hardware and software variations on the board. I had the opportunity to bid on series development but the feature was postponed... All hardware and library software that I produced for this company has remained BSD licensed; the only proprietary code is is the top level Arduino sketch (and I essentially get to define what this "top" level is :-)). <br>
<br>These solutions were presented to the CEO and board of directors as part of internal concept car reviews. <br><br>We did it in about 1/2 the time and 1/10th the cost of a proprietary commercial solution. Even at 1/10th the cost, this work represented an order of magnitude more money than I need to pursue whatever other OSHW hobby projects I might envision for the next 10 years or so.<br>
<br></span></div><div><span>I have had several other people approach me for other work some I accepted some not.<br></span></div><div><span><br></span></div><span>So OSHW is also advertising...<br>
<br></span></div><span>Cheers!<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>Andrew<br></font></span></span><div><span><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Marketply <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:contact@marketply.org" target="_blank">contact@marketply.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><u></u>
<div>
<div>
<div><div>
<div>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> On November 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM Javier Serrano <<a href="mailto:Javier.Serrano@cern.ch" target="_blank">Javier.Serrano@cern.ch</a>> wrote:</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> </span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> </span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> I can only speak for our case at CERN BE-CO-HT. We were more inspired by</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> Free Software than by Open Source Software. The only reason we don't</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> call our stuff "Free Hardware" is that it's even more misleading than</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> "Free Software". The "free" in "Free Software" is of course about</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> freedom (not price), a subject which is not the main focus in Open</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> Source. Both stands are respectable, of course, and we feel at ease in</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> both families, but one thing is for sure: the choice of the word "free"</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> has caused endless confusion. Even if you are aware of what the "free"</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> in Free Software means, as I am sure you are, it's too damn easy to fall</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> into the trap of talking about "free beer" when criticizing Free</span>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">> Software, as you just did in the preceding paragraph.</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div><div>
<br>We can change it from 'free' to 'freed' and problem solved.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
It can't get confused as much for free beer. And much easier to tie to the liberty of using something.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
'Freed' even has more advantages: it's seems more
<em>active</em> when we read it, as if the mere labeling with the word is saying "
<em>this has been freed, yet there await more software and hardware to be freed</em>". Like a conquered challenge! And a call to action for more! Freed software. Freed hardware. Technology freed open. Also freeing creative content.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The word is unifying across all of free culture. Including all knowledge in the public domain freed of law and restrictions.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
OpenPlex is an (upcoming) open-source technology park that will use the word 'Freedware' to the effect of unifying all open technology: software, hardware, firmware under one open banner. A trademark for all people in the marketplace – buyers and sellers – to rest assured that freed goods are really true to their licenses (OSHW, GPL, MPL, MIT, Apache, etc).
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
And will invite the licensors to collaborate openly with its community (and drive compatibility between licenses?). As OpenPlex will strive to be the most transparent company in the world, distributed globally, sharing its knowledge in real time universally, and empowering its community to veto any major decision that people feel runs counter to the company's core principles.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div><div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;border-left:solid 1px blue" type="cite">
<span style="color:#808080">On November 20, 2013 at 3:48 PM Matt Maier <<a href="mailto:blueback09@gmail.com" target="_blank">blueback09@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<span style="color:#808080">Implicit in Stallman's argument (quoted above) is that a "free as in speech" program, once created, can be implemented by anyone at little-to-no cost. Giving away the IP rights to code dramatically reduces the "beer" costs for everyone else.</span>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><div>
<br> The free software project doesn't give away rights, they work under copyright law to license rights.
</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;border-left:solid 1px blue" type="cite"><div>
<span style="color:#808080">On November 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM Matt Maier <<a href="mailto:blueback09@gmail.com" target="_blank">blueback09@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#808080">It doesn't actually undermine the goals of the open source community. If the problem solution is stable, then it's appropriate to mass produce it. However, mass production usually requires making changes to the design, which will not be supported by the community if they're not open sourced by the manufacturer. So, the community will continue chugging along. Individual inventors might feel slighted, or even taken advantage of, but "open source" specifically does not provide the same individual protections that "proprietary" does. The power and protection is based in the community, not in any one individual.</span>
</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<div>
<span style="color:#808080"> </span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="color:#808080">People who don't understand that are going to get their feelings hurt, but it's the same as misunderstanding anything else. If someone wants individual protection they should go get a patent, rather than try to squeeze personal rights back into "open source" when they were given up on purpose.</span>
</div>
</div><div>
<span style="color:#808080"> .....</span>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote><div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;border-left:solid 1px blue" type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<span style="color:#808080">Well...they probably don't call what they're selling "open source." Even if they did, the structure of "open source" prevents any attempt to use the law to stop them. The whole point of "open source" is that the inventor gives away most of the rights to their intellectual property, including the right to make money off of it. People who "open source" things shouldn't be surprised when someone else does exactly the things they were permitted to do.</span>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div><div>
No one in open source gives away rights. They enjoy the same full copyright protections as proprietary does. The license merely makes it easier to share the copyrighted material and specifically requires certain things like licensing any changes under the same license and including the source files. The license is legally binding.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
If that is incorrect, someone please chime in.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Cheers!
</div><div>
<div>
<br>😃,
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Marino Hernandez
<br>(just a founder of
<a href="http://www.marketply.org" target="_blank">Marketply</a>)
<br><a href="tel:203-429-4205" value="+12034294205" target="_blank">203-429-4205</a>
</div>
</div></div><br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>