Can it be called Open Source HW if you can't make it at home? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 10:16:45 am
content: That might be a weird question.Would it be meaningful to call a design open source if it needs a PCB that can't be made at home?Too tightly packed to fit into the necessary size, too fine pithed or BGA components, need for a 4 layer board or heatsinking substrate, etc.In the end, reproducing the design would necessitate you to order the PCB from Eurocircuits, PCBCart or others.So, the price of making it or a derivative yourself will be tens of times more than of buying one.At best, one can learn something from it.At worst, the design is out there for chineese to make profit off.Is it still meaningful?

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 10:26:11 am
content: It's free as in freedom of speech, not as in free meal. It's open source - the source is open. Then it's up to you what you do with it.If you can't make something, or you don't have the money to make it, it's not the fault of the ones providing the information, is it?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 10:30:52 am
content: It is unfortunate that the English language conflates the terms for freedom and free of charge. It seems most other langauges don't do that.

author: StefanHamminga
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 10:53:57 am
content: I don't see why this wouldn't be open source. Open source can be to educate someone on the design (because you are required or prefer to allow diagnostics, improvements, modifications, adaptations, etc), besides facilitating easy one on one reproduction. An overly difficult production method comes with it's own penalties already.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 10:59:05 am
content: Quote from: StefanHamminga on November 13, 2014, 10:53:57 amSource doesn't have to be open to be educational. It only needs to be available for inspection.

author: Tandy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 11:08:20 am
content: The primary point of Open Source is in the name that is the source materials are available so that someone can use the source files as the basis to build it, it doesn't matter if they don't have the tools to do it. Given the right equipment and skills you can build anything yourself but complex manufacturing techniques might require that you send the source files to someone that has the required equipment or skills. For example if you create a 3D object in a CAD package and make the source CAD file available then people who have a 3D printer or CNC machine can produce the object. However many people won't have a machine but can take the file to a friend that does or use a commercial printing/machining service.Perhaps the most important aspect of Open Source is making sure that all the source information is made available so that someone can modify it. The most attractive thing about open designs is that if the design does not quite meet your needs you can make changes to it or pay someone else to make the changes for you as the source material is available. This is obviously far more preferable than having to reverse engineer something or re-invent the wheel. The more information you supply the more open it is considered and the more likely it is to be accepted. So providing a schematic, CAD file, and any source code for microcontrollers or FPGAs etc makes the design fully customisable.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 01:26:15 pm
content: In short, yes.Just because you don't have the equipment or skills to make something at home doesn't mean it isn't OSHW.OSHW is effectively someone who gives you the entire resources, PCB / Schematic files to make that product and design.For example, if I designed something in Altium, published the project files, I consider than OSHW, if you can't open those files because you don't have Altium then that is not my problem, it is still OSHW.

author: mark03
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 04:28:56 pm
content: Quote from: Wilksey on November 13, 2014, 01:26:15 pmThat is getting into a gray area. Many OSHW advocates would argue that if the design files are only released in a proprietary format, one which cannot be read without non-free software, you cannot really consider the project OSHW. If gerbers and a PDF schematic were released, then it would be OSHW. Convenience is not required for OSHW, but if the information is locked behind a door which requires an entry fee, that's a different matter.

author: LukeW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 05:13:51 pm
content: Making homemade PCBs yourself is extremely limiting in terms of the density you can achieve, the component packages you can use, the size of your vias, lack of through-hole plating, inability to put vias under components because you can't make them flush etc.It's just not competitive with going to a professional PCB fab house - even ignoring cost, labor intensity, you just can't manufacture the same thing even if you spend heaps of time and money.What are you going to do, keep all your designs extremely limited in terms of component package choices, avoiding many high-density modern packages, make the board 10x the size it needs to be and leave plenty of room for hand-soldered wire vias in 0.5mm holes, keep everything only 1-layer or maybe 2-layer at the most, absolutely no chance of >=4 layers, for the "homemade" layout and then redo a second layout from scratch when you're ready to manufacture something that is more compact and uses the dense component packages that you want to use? Might as well just do the layout once rather than doing the whole design and layout twice.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 05:48:11 pm
content: QuoteDepends on how you define "Open Source".It seems to me, from its literal reading, "open source" and "making it at home" aren't mutually exclusive, or even related at all.So the answer to your question is likely "yes".

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:12:54 pm
content: If you release the source file then it's open source. However open source is not a binary attribute but a continuum of openness. The easier you make it for people to make/mix/reuse the more open it is. Free tools such as eagle are more open than Altium. Inexpensive parts are more open than fancy hard to get one. Parts that one can solder by hand are more open that require expensive equipment. ...You get the idea.

author: StefanHamminga
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:32:42 pm
content: Quote from: mark03 on November 13, 2014, 04:28:56 pmActually, I wonder if the OSWH association definition screwed up a bit here. They state in their introduction section (outside of the definition) ideally the design tools would be open, but later on, in their actual criteria they state that a native (and possibly closed) format is to be preferred over CAM files:QuoteThat last sentence is great for a website, but terrible in a definition. If their intent was to ensure open access to the native files they should skip the 'may' bits and if their intentions are to allow the original publisher to set additional demands, while still complying with the OSHW definition, then I think they need to rephrase this as, for example, 'The original copyright holder may additionally require that licensees publish design files in a fully documented, open format.'What else is interesting in this is that they clearly prefer the ability to understand and modify the design over the ability to reproduce it. (I agree with this line of thought.)It might be interesting for them to do some funding campaign to allow them to obtain a certification mark, allowing enforcement of a singular OWSH definition, instead of posting a statement that can optionally be modified or enforced by the original designer.

author: Christopher
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 07:50:31 pm
content: What if I could make 2 layer boards at home fine and you couldn't? Would the project then not be open source?Doesn't matter if it's designed in altium or eagle, either.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 04:45:41 pm
content: Hm.I get the idea.Open design.All the sources are here, for you to tweak, adapt and learn from.Regardless of homemake-ability.However, what i was thinking about is a project that does not exist other than as an open source.Youcan'tbuy it anywhere, there are only sources and design files online.And it's something relatively easy to make at home, for under $10.Now, i want to improve it.However, to make these improvements possible i need to go beyond the limit of all but borderline-industrial home PCB making processes.The problem is, there is still not a crab's whistle of a chance of it being available for purchase anywhere.It would still only exist as sources and design files online.But now it is also pretty much impossible to make at home, so the price of getting one is now $10+$150.It's nowhere near worth $160.In other words, the thing would be stillborn.Is it still meaningful?

author: Tandy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 05:09:02 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on November 14, 2014, 04:45:41 pmOnly you can decide that, value depends on how much you need it.

author: Wilksey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 06:07:04 pm
content: I still think that just because I use Altium for example and publish the files, if I also give the Gerbers, which most do anyway in OS, that is still classed as open source.It's like saying I have a piece of code written in <insert favourite paid for package here>, does that mean it's closed source just because if you want to modify it then it means you have to buy that package? No, it doesn't.If people start saying we can only make OSH products in KiCAD because it's the only package that is "truly" free, then we would all be buggered.Dave's uCurrent is OSHW, the files are available in Gerber and Altium, doesn't mean that if I don't have Altium it isn't OS.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 06:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on November 14, 2014, 04:45:41 pmSince when does open source mean 'makeable at home' ?What i can make at home is different from what you can make at home.I may happen to have a pcb installation in my garage ... you may be stuck using perfboard ...if we always have to reduce our designs to the lowest common denominator then all open source project will be 'dumbed down' to an led and a battery since not everyone can afford a resistor or knows how how to read the color code ...Look at that laptop project by Bunny. It is fully open source. yeah it uses a mulitlayer board and BGa parts and was done in an expensive cad tool. so what ? The guy has access to that kind of stuff for hobby so he takes advantage of that. If he had to listen to the people complaining about it's not made with kicad , there's too much surface mount , it uses bga's yadda yadda yadda ... so what is one to do ? Make it with vacuum tubes and spiderwebs ? and use a number 2 pencil on paper to document it ? cause 'not everyone has a computer you know ...I read Makezine from time to time. it's full of stuff i can't make at home. i don't have woodworking tools or a lathe or a 3 axis cnc or a 3d printer. Now you can say : well buy a 3d printer or buy a mitre saw , and i will throw back : buy a bga rework station and buy a scope and order the pcb board ...see where this is headed ...

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 06:27:22 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on November 14, 2014, 04:45:41 pmI spent almost $4k on one hobby project and seems that will need to spend more. Average supermarket cashier in Latvia earns about $400/month after taxes. So what, I shouldn't do that project? So if someone can't afford it then all open source projects must be crippled down to the led blinker or what?

author: conducteur
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 06:32:35 pm
content: Yeah, it's open. I understand what you mean, but if someone doesn't have (money to buy) a soldering iron, he can't make it. So then nothing is open source...

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 06:37:01 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on November 14, 2014, 06:09:33 pm...I can't believe i never heard of this one before, considering that i'm working on just that right now (but at 1/10th the scaler).Thanks for mentioning it.And, yeah.That one thing really puts it into perspective and answers the question.Thanks all for the comments.