<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 06.01.2015 13:31, Roy Nielsen wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> It would be great to have a
certification that certifies that the _hardware_design_ is also
open source.<br>
</span><br>
I am a bit sceptical about any central authority who manages
certification (e.g. I doubt that as many organic food is produced as
is labeled with a certificate and sold in stores...).<br>
<br>
But maybe a decentralized, peer-review audit-like system could be
viable, run by the OSH community for the OSH community on a
voluntary basis.<br>
If there would be a simple to use infrastructure where you could
have checked/looked over one of your designs by other fellow OSH
designers (and you would check theirs, ...) and they<br>
could give you feedback on what things are missing, could be
improved for your design to meet the OSH definition...<br>
(I'm not thinking about feedback whether your design is any good,
just whether it meets the OSH definition)<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">><br>
> If the platform is closed source and the firmware is open
source is that a win for open source? I say only partially. It's
a nice first step, but to be fully open source, the
_hardware_design_ must also be open source.<br>
><br>
</span><span style="white-space: pre;">> What do you think?<br>
</span><br>
Yes, there seem to be different conceptual levels for which freedom
may be granted:<br>
1. free software<br>
2. free access to the free software<br>
3. free hardware design<br>
4. free chip design<br>
<br>
I'm looking forward to the day where we reach 4, this looks
promising: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lowrisc.org/">http://www.lowrisc.org/</a><br>
<span style="white-space: pre;"><br>
> Regards,<br>
> -Roy<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Hanspeter Portner
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch">dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch"><mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch></a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
></span><br>
<blockquote type="cite">I just stumbled across the "Respects Your
Freedom hardware product<br>
certification" [1] by the Free Software Foundation.<br>
I was agnostic about that until now. I thought I would post it
here if<br>
somebody should be interested.<br>
<br>
I think it is an interesting idea to actually have someone
(independent,<br>
non-profit) check whether your hardware/firmware is<br>
free (or falsly claimed to be...).<br>
<br>
Compared to the OSH definition [4], it does not seem to define any<br>
criteria for the hardware design to be open, but puts its focus<br>
on shipped firmware/software. The latter (in contrast to the OSH<br>
definition) must be free to pass the certification criteria [2].<br>
<br>
There is already some certified hardware out there [3].<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom">http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom</a><br>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria">http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria</a><br>
[3] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ryf.fsf.org/">http://ryf.fsf.org/</a><br>
[4] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.oshwa.org/definition/">http://www.oshwa.org/definition/</a><br>
<br>
Hanspeter<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>