<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">To me, it’s confusing for the required criteria to yield a score, if only a perfect score counts as OSHW. That is, a naive reader might think that 13/15 or 14/15 is a good score, even though we wouldn’t consider the project OSHW. To me, it seems like we’re better off using a checklist approach instead, i.e. these are all the things you have to do to be considered OSHW. OSHWA has some things like that already: </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.oshwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/oshwchecklist.pdf" class="">http://www.oshwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/oshwchecklist.pdf</a></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.oshwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OSHW-May-and-Must.pdf" class="">http://www.oshwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/OSHW-May-and-Must.pdf</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Although suggestions are always welcome.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A related approach I’d love feedback on is whether there is a well-defined and agreed on set of practices that could constitute either a weaker or stronger standard than our current OSHW definition.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For example, can we imagine trying to establish a meaning of “partially open” hardware — e.g. hardware for which design files are released but under a more restrictive license than OSHW; hardware for which some files (like schematic PDFs) are released but not others (like the actual design files). This is still more open than many pieces of hardware, so it might be worth trying to recognize these efforts, even if they’re not fully OSHW. Thoughts?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the other direction, could we imagine something like a “pure open-source hardware” standard, e.g. hardware which is designed using open-source software tools, and which only uses, say, components that are standard / widely available / publicly documented?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">David</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 25, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Mario Gómez <<a href="mailto:mxgxw.alpha@gmail.com" class="">mxgxw.alpha@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi Ben,<br class=""><br class="">That's the idea of the proposed score, there is a set of questions that evaluate compliance against the OSHW definition. Your project must meet the required score 15/15 to be considered OSHW.<br class=""><br class="">The reason why is a score instead a simple evaluation of compliance is because I was thinking that it also must work as a tool for the begginer that want to develop OSHW and a guide of which changes are needed to be compliant. Currently in the way the score is designed you must have 15 of 15 points of compliance to be considered OSHW if you doesn't meet all of it well... then your project simply isn't OSHW. However you'll know after the evaluation how far is your project of getting the goal, it's not the same to get a score of 1 than a score of 14. The system later would underline the things that you failed to comply and (hopefuly) give you a guide or ideas about what to do.<br class=""><br class="">After the 15 "required" points there are 7 aditional points that evaluate good practices. The idea of including this in the calculation of the score is because in some way is easy to comply with the definition but that doesn't guarantee that you are following good practices. Then again if you've got the 15 required points the extra points help you to know if you are following the best practices and giving added value to your project generating a good and accesible documentation.<br class=""><br class="">Also I think that the definition is pretty clear of what things prevent a project to be considered OSHW and the questions of the score were elaborated that way, following the definition.<br class=""><br class="">Regards,<br class="">Mario.<br class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Ben Gray <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:ben@phenoptix.com" target="_blank" class="">ben@phenoptix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">Although I like the idea of an index, it seems to be enough of a problem (even on this list) to recognise what constitutes Open Source Hardware or not. I feel that adding an index or score could muddy the waters even more.<div class="">However it could add to understanding if the compliance elements are stressed and failure underlined rather than a low score given.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">--<br class=""><br class="">Best Regards<br class=""><br class="">Ben Gray - Director<div class=""><br class=""><img src="http://images.phenoptix.com/forum/AVRISP/logo.png" height="54" width="200" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><a href="http://www.phenoptix.com/" target="_blank" class="">www.phenoptix.com</a><br class=""><a href="http://twitter.com/phenoptix" target="_blank" class="">twitter.com/phenoptix</a></div><div class=""><a href="http://plus.google.com/+phenoptix" target="_blank" class="">plus.google.com/+phenoptix</a><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div><div class=""><div class="h5">
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 February 2015 at 07:16, Jeffrey Warren <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:jeff@publiclab.org" target="_blank" class="">jeff@publiclab.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">So one thing I like about the contrib.json file is that it'd have a BOM requirement with potentially optional things like prices, links for where to buy materials, etc.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;line-height:20px" class="">I had some ideas (talking with <a href="http://publiclab.org/profile/rjstatic" style="color:rgb(0,136,204);text-decoration:none" target="_blank" class="">RJ Steinert</a> of Farm Hack) about how a more Bower- or NPM-style utility could parse such files... these are just roughly sketched out ideas -- say we called it "newt":</p><ul style="padding:0px;margin:0px 0px 10px 25px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px" class=""><li class=""><code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">newt init</code> -- would run a text-based questionnaire to generate contrib.json file</li><li class=""><code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">newt compile bom</code> -- aggregate/merge BOMs of nested projects</li><li class=""><code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">newt compile bom <string></code> -- aggregate/merge BOMs with links matching provided <code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">string</code> like "<a href="http://digikey.com/" target="_blank" class="">digikey.com</a>"</li><li class=""><code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">newt compile price <int></code> -- calculate unit price for <code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">int</code> units</li><li class=""><code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">newt compile contributors</code> -- compile contributors of nested projects</li><li class=""><code style="padding:2px 4px;font-family:Monaco,Menlo,Consolas,"Courier New",monospace;font-size:12px;color:rgb(221,17,68);border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid rgb(225,225,232);background-color:rgb(247,247,249)" class="">newt register</code> -- makes searchable, tests for presence of req'd docs, clones repos or zips</li></ul><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#333333" class=""><span style="line-height:20px" class="">Updated my post in the comments here, where there's also been some discussion about versioning: <a href="http://publiclab.org/notes/warren/02-24-2015/standardizing-open-source-hardware-publication-practices-with-contributors-json#c11215" target="_blank" class="">http://publiclab.org/notes/warren/02-24-2015/standardizing-open-source-hardware-publication-practices-with-contributors-json#c11215</a></span></font></div></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#333333" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class=""><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#333333" class=""><br class=""></font></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Roy Nielsen <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:amrset@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">amrset@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Hello,<br class=""><br class="">One possibility would be to require a "BOM" or bill of materials that is required for an OSHWA certified design. Perhaps something like the following for an embedded board:<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* contributors.jason<br class=""></div>* Project BOM - in the part descriptions - includes whether a part is open source or closed source <br class=""> (ie processors, complex chips, etc)<br class=""></div><div class="">* Schematics list - including descriptions & if the schematics are modifiable (ie, not pdf)<br class=""></div><div class="">* License<br class=""></div><div class="">* Hardware Design Documentation<br class=""></div><div class="">* Software Design Documentation & License (if applicable, like firmware)<br class=""></div><div class="">* Connectors - if they are open design/interface<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">anything else?<br class=""><br class="">Score could possibly be based on what of the above is available . .<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,<br class=""></div><div class="">-Roy<br class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Pablo Kulbaba <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:pablokulbaba@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">pablokulbaba@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
On the validation via a community or a specific group of people,
maybe the initial open community can provide a seedstock to raise
educated people to form a later trusted group of people that gives
an ulterior certification.<br class="">
<br class="">
PD: Had to search JSON. <br class=""><div class=""><div class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">On 24/02/2015 08:00 p.m., Mario Gómez
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">@jeff:<br class="">
<br class="">
That's great! It can even work both ways: If you already
have a JSON you can provide the URL to automatically
calculate the indicator for your project and vice versa: if
you complete the questionnaire it could automatically
generate the JSON file that you can include in your project
as you propose that would be easy to do.<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Sadly I'm a little busy this week but let me see if I can
program a functional prototype so we can experiment how it
could work for the next month. (<span lang="en" class=""><span class="">I would not mind</span>
<span class="">if someone</span> else <span class="">wants
to help)</span></span></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
@Javier:<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I personally like the idea of the community, because if
the process is straight forward, verifiable and transparent
what matters is the result of the evaluation system and not
the person/group of persons doing the evaluation. This is
assuming that the evaluation system provides means to
minimize/prevent abuses (That's why I consider important to
also implementing a meta-evaluation system).<br class="">
<br class="">
However... being certified from a trusted group of people
it's really important and I think that the OSHWA could be an
appropriate group to do that. But let's hear more opinions,
I think that it's possible to build something simple that
helps people to follow the OSHW philosophy in their
projects.<br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
Regards,<br class="">
Mario.<br class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM,
Jeffrey Warren <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:jeff@publiclab.org" target="_blank" class="">jeff@publiclab.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr" class="">I really like this idea!
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Somewhat related is this idea from chatting with
Alicia Gibb a few months ago, of a contributors.json
file which would fulfill (with links, short
descriptions, etc) all the terms of the OSH definition. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I finally typed up the idea and our sample format
here:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><a href="http://publiclab.org/notes/warren/02-24-2015/standardizing-open-source-hardware-publication-practices-with-contributors-json" target="_blank" class="">http://publiclab.org/notes/warren/02-24-2015/standardizing-open-source-hardware-publication-practices-with-contributors-json</a><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Love to hear input. Perhaps the questionnaire could
generate such a file. At Public Lab, it'd be interesting
for the file to be auto-generated from our tool wiki
pages. The nice part about it is that it's not
specifying a way of browsing or aggregating projects (as
other folks are exploring that space) but specifies a
standard way to make the relevant/required information
available for such projects to scrape/consume. Also,
it's easy enough to write by hand and include in a
github repository. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best,</div>
<div class="">Jeff</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:55
PM, Javier Serrano <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:Javier.Serrano@cern.ch" target="_blank" class="">Javier.Serrano@cern.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Mario,
I think this is a great idea. I see this can play
a role in the<br class="">
solution to one of the biggest problems of OSHW:
how to make sure<br class="">
developers have more incentives to publish their
work. Economic<br class="">
incentives in particular. An OSHW label could give
(more) prestige to<br class="">
developers who hold it and induce purchaser-driven
growth of OSHW. We<br class="">
are already seeing that prestige is a big element
in the success of OSHW<br class="">
companies. A well advertised and supported label
or mark could enlarge<br class="">
the population of savvy customers.<br class="">
<span class=""><br class="">
On 02/24/2015 05:58 PM, Mario Gómez wrote:<br class="">
> The idea is that the community validates if
you are telling the truth.<br class="">
> To prevent abuse a meta-validation system
could be implemented were you<br class="">
> can "evaluate the evaluators" to see if
their are being fair on their<br class="">
> evaluations.<br class="">
<br class="">
</span>One alternative is to entrust the OSHWA
with that role. "Community" is a<br class="">
vague term. If I have to trust someone on whether
a piece of software is<br class="">
free software I will trust the FSF over the
"community" any day. One way<br class="">
of doing it would be through a creative use of
marks or labels, in the<br class="">
vein of what OHANDA [1] proposes. See also the
work of the Wikimedia<br class="">
Foundation [2] in this regard. In this scenario,
developers have a<br class="">
natural incentive to not misuse the mark, because
they can be sued with<br class="">
all the arsenal of trademark law if they do.<br class="">
<br class="">
Cheers,<br class="">
<br class="">
Javier<br class="">
<br class="">
[1] <a href="http://www.ohanda.org/" target="_blank" class="">http://www.ohanda.org/</a><br class="">
[2] <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy" target="_blank" class="">http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy</a><br class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
discuss mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
discuss mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class=""></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre class="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div></div><span class=""><font color="#888888" class=""><pre cols="72" class="">--
PabloK</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
discuss mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></div><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
discuss mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></div><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
discuss mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div>
<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
discuss mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">discuss mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" class="">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br class="">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>