<html><head></head><body>That's a very interesting idea. Recently I got in touch with a collective of hardware hackers who have defined a selfclassification for sustainable design. Basically contributors are licensing their work under their license specifying which oshw license and some aspects about the prime materials and components used, its environmental impact. That results in some classification or ratings, and should help purchaser driven growth. <br>
<a href="http://xctit.cooperativa.cat/licencia-cic/autoevaluacion-licencia">http://xctit.cooperativa.cat/licencia-cic/autoevaluacion-licencia</a>/<br>
<br>
I understand that these xtit hackers go a few steps further, in some sense. So it might be good to allow for extension of the json spec, to accomodate various additional classifications.<br>
<br>
Wrt community, I agree with Javier, but the case of the FSF is quite particular. RMS is the undisputed, incorruptible long time reference in free software. We have no such reference in oshw, imho.<br>
<br>
That said, I'm sure we can design a p2p driven process that is legally validated by the OSHWA.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Wouter<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 de febrero de 2015 21:55:34 CET, Javier Serrano <Javier.Serrano@cern.ch> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">Mario, I think this is a great idea. I see this can play a role in the<br />solution to one of the biggest problems of OSHW: how to make sure<br />developers have more incentives to publish their work. Economic<br />incentives in particular. An OSHW label could give (more) prestige to<br />developers who hold it and induce purchaser-driven growth of OSHW. We<br />are already seeing that prestige is a big element in the success of OSHW<br />companies. A well advertised and supported label or mark could enlarge<br />the population of savvy customers.<br /><br />On 02/24/2015 05:58 PM, Mario Gómez wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> The idea is that the community validates if you are telling the truth.<br /> To prevent abuse a meta-validation system could be implemented were you<br /> can "evaluate the evaluators" to see if their are being fair on their<br />
evaluations.<br /></blockquote><br />One alternative is to entrust the OSHWA with that role. "Community" is a<br />vague term. If I have to trust someone on whether a piece of software is<br />free software I will trust the FSF over the "community" any day. One way<br />of doing it would be through a creative use of marks or labels, in the<br />vein of what OHANDA [1] proposes. See also the work of the Wikimedia<br />Foundation [2] in this regard. In this scenario, developers have a<br />natural incentive to not misuse the mark, because they can be sued with<br />all the arsenal of trademark law if they do.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Javier<br /><br />[1] <a href="http://www.ohanda.org">http://www.ohanda.org</a>/<br />[2] <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy">http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy</a><br /><hr /><br />discuss mailing list<br />discuss@lists.oshwa.org<br /><a
href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Enviado desde mi teléfono con K-9 Mail.</body></html>