<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<br>
Peer review sounds good - but what if both favor closed(ish)?<br>
<br>
Some kind of 3rd party thing might be a good idea - let me give you
an example of what I'm thinking.<br>
<br>
Have you heard of the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
program that OSHA in the US manages?<br>
<br>
Underwriter Laboratory(UL) is probably the most popular, at least in
the consumer market. If I understand correctly they have a
committee of experts from industry that create "standards" for
things like the safety of portable space heaters. UPSs. Power
Strips. Just about anything electrically related, that may have a
hazard involved. Then they test the devices per the created safety
standard. <br>
<br>
This kind of organization might be advisable as we might get people
peer reviewing each other that have their own idea of what the
meaning of Open Source or Certification may be.<br>
<br>
An organization like OSHWA might act as the coordinator for the
standards like UL. People could always apply to be on the committee
that makes the standards. They could be vetted to make sure they
are qualified to be on the committee. <br>
<br>
This is kind of the way National Fire Protection Agency 70E code and
the National Electric Code in the US are managed as well.<br>
<br>
Just food for thought.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
-Roy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/7/2015 3:08 PM, Hanspeter Portner
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54ADAE58.2060007@open-music-kontrollers.ch"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch">dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ryf.fsf.org/">http://ryf.fsf.org/</a><br>
[4] <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>