<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08.01.2015 04:25, Roy Nielsen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54ADF893.9040005@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/7/2015 4:07 PM, Matt Maier
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+S82DpcMnT1cvg-XBqK3CmSCVK5WpYzPB3xdSZdyOaLdp3EOQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>"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. 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
could give you feedback on what things are missing, could be
improved for your design to meet the OSH definition"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Isn't that just, you know, what normally happens? What
would that add over the normal interest and review and
discussion that happens on any project? How would
disagreements be handled?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly! And it works great. The difference is just an added active
component where a designer could actively ask for feedback somewhere
defined whether his/her design is in accordance to the OSH
definition instead of waiting for someone stumbling across it in the
web or elsewhere. A given design may well be of use to only a
handful of individuals or to none at all and thus never get any
passive feedback ;-)<br>
<br>
Just found the idea interesting to have a design be *actively*
looked over when desired by a designer who's not sure whether he/she
got it right, nothing more, it may be useful, it may well be totally
unnecessary...<br>
There seems to be no need for any certification as long as there's
no massive fraud being done with false OSH claims in the first
place...<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:54ADF893.9040005@gmail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+S82DpcMnT1cvg-XBqK3CmSCVK5WpYzPB3xdSZdyOaLdp3EOQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the point of a "certification" would be for one
unambiguous standard to be maintained to benchmark against.
Something with a gatekeeper that guarantees consistency. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I guess my concern would be to make sure the certification would
be unbiased, impartial and a community agreed upon standard.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
-Roy<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+S82DpcMnT1cvg-XBqK3CmSCVK5WpYzPB3xdSZdyOaLdp3EOQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:08 PM,
Hanspeter Portner <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch"
target="_blank">dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div><span> On 06.01.2015 13:31, Roy Nielsen wrote:<br>
<span>> It would be great to have a certification
that certifies that the _hardware_design_ is also
open source.<br>
</span><br>
</span> 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)<span><br>
<br>
<span>><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>> What do you think?<br>
</span><br>
</span> 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"
href="http://www.lowrisc.org/" target="_blank">http://www.lowrisc.org/</a><br>
<span><br>
> Regards,<br>
> -Roy<span><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Hanspeter
Portner <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch"
target="_blank">dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch"
target="_blank"><mailto:dev@open-music-kontrollers.ch></a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
></span></span><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"
href="http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom"
target="_blank">http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom</a><br>
[2] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria"
target="_blank">http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria</a><br>
[3] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ryf.fsf.org/" target="_blank">http://ryf.fsf.org/</a><br>
[4] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oshwa.org/definition/"
target="_blank">http://www.oshwa.org/definition/</a><br>
<br>
Hanspeter</blockquote>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>