Open Source licenses... - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: 0xFFFF
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2013, 11:05:50 pm
content: Hello Everyone!Can anyone tell me what I need to do when specifying a specific open source license for hardware and software?Currently I'm at the point where I have created a PCB design and I'm about to send it off. Before I do so, I'd like to specify an open source license.I want anyone to feel free to improve upon, tweak, customize, hack my work as long as they still give credit but I don't want any of my work to be used in a closed source design.What should I stamp on my PCB (as far as an open source license goes)?Do I need to sign any dotted lines anywhere?TIA

author: alexanderhiam
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2013, 03:40:55 am
content: Here's a list of a few open hardware licenses:http://www.ohwr.org/licenses. I've been using the CERN OHL myself. It has a pretty clear set of instructions on how to apply it:http://www.ohwr.org/documents/88.

author: 0xFFFF
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2013, 05:11:47 am
content: Thanks alexanderhiamCan you tell me why you picked CERN OHL?Whenever I read this stuff I usually have a brain fart. I hate legal mumbo jumbo.Just noticed 'Open Source Hardware Explained - EEVblog #195' - watching now...

author: mswhin63
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2013, 10:54:38 am
content: Quote from: 0xFFFF on April 08, 2013, 05:11:47 amI love the okka euphemisms.

author: alexanderhiam
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2013, 06:13:03 pm
content: Yup, great video.A large part of the reason I like the CERN license is that it's designed specifically for hardware. It's really not all that different from Creative Commons in theory, but CC was really not designed for hardware, and there's a number of grey areas when using it.For example, if you put CC BY-SA (attribution share-alike) on your PCB as well as on your documentation, it's not really clear whether they're under the same license or licensed separately. Someone could redistribute your PCB design with their own documentation, that might be completely wrong, and you would have a hard time trying to argue it. Firmware and software can be similarly confusing.CERN, on the other hand, is explicit in the fact that it applies to the hardware design and the documentation, but not to any firmware or software. When you apply the CERN OHL, your design files, changelog and documentation (usage and assembly instructions, etc.) become a single entity.The fact that it doesn't apply to firmware could also be seen as a problem, I suppose, because I believe you could technically have an open source board that runs proprietary firmware. I see it as a good thing myself, as I think there's enough differences between hardware and software that a single license really shouldn't apply to both, and there's a lot of great free/open software licenses to choose from.Another good feature of the CERN license is that it specifies certain requirements for the level and quality of your documentation, which I like because it forces me to keep on top of it

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2013, 08:47:42 pm
content: Quote from: 0xFFFF on April 07, 2013, 11:05:50 pmi don't think that is enforcable...Let's say you make a system made of an input capacitor , followed by an lm741 in unity gain and a 10k output resistor. And you make a board for that. And you apply open source licence. call this an AC coupled buffer amplifier.i see your schematic. a bit later i make a board containing just the 741 in unity gain and some connectors. i do not publish schematics , i remove the part numbers and cover the entire block in black goop...how are you going to sue me ?you will have to prove i saw your schematic.... good luck on that.you also will have to prove my circuit was built on , or a mod of yours. ( a 741 in unity gain has been around for 50 years.)you will also have to buy one of my products, strip it out of its epoxy compound and etch the chip top off to verify it is indeed a 741...let's say i improve your circuit by swapping the 741 for a way better opamp... add some decoupling , a power regulator and some protection circuitry. i also change cap value so the bandwidth is differenthow are you going to prove i built this on top of your design ?with software this licence trick works as you have the sourcecode and can copy ad-literam large blocks. Also in software the binary fingerprint ( compiled code) may turn out to be identical. this is much harder with hardware.with hardware ? not so. there is only so many ways to make an ac coupled buffer amplifier... and you can't claim copyright over something that has been done before ...let's take a harder case :you build an alarm clock in TTL chips with 7 segment displays.i take that idea, implement it in an FGPA and add pwm dimming of the LED displays and i don't disclose how it's done.. Howe are you going to prove i copied your design and improved it... let's say i copied your schematic literally and synthesized it in an FPGA. the synthesis and mapping will obfuscate it so it becomes undetectable. and even if you detect it in some way : the logic netlist will be completely different from your ttl chip netlist... the function is the same , the physical implementation not...if you want to protect the functionality you need a patent. if you want to protect the implementation : that is moot as there is so many ways to skin a cat ...The fact you threw it out there makes it fair game.

author: sub
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2013, 09:45:52 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 08, 2013, 08:47:42 pmCopyright doesn't cover the circuit itself, so everything you said is legal. Only the documents themselves (including schematic files, layout files, etc.) are covered. I'm not sure about the layout itself; quite possibly not, since there is a separate and less restrictive regime for IC layouts, and it could be claimed that the layout itself is purely functional (excepting art and whatnot that is put on the board).

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2013, 03:59:54 pm
content: Ah, the documents. Ok. So what if i make a new blank document , , open yours, select all copy , click on mine , paste ... Twice, because i make a two channel version. I add some decoupling of my own and an led an power switch. And i move the wires a bit.What now ? Prove i copied yours ... You did not draw those symbols.. You pulled them out of standard library... It is also no longer a binary copy ... (Which would the case if you copied a program.. )So exactly on what are you claiming copyright ?So far we eliminated- the principle (that would need a patent),- the implementation (i change part values and opamp type. Game over )- the document . Copy paste leaves no binary footprint. Since i moved the wires the coordinate numbers in the file are different so it will not be visible there either. The file does not store where a certain element came from. Like part placed from library blah , block pasted from clipboard, source this document made by xyz <- now you would catch me. But there is no record in the file. The file itself is just a bunch of references to lines that get interpreted and drawn on screen. If i move a wire a bit the numbers change and the files are bo longer binary comparable.. So proof becomes impossible.What if i print out your pdf of your schematic you made in eagle and redraw it in altium... The fileformat is completely different... It may be the exact same schematic.. You still can't block me from making this closed source. You have no authority over my file. I may have come to the same solution fully independently.My point is the following : this kind if licencing stuff is bullshit. If you release a schematic out there it is fair game. You cannot dictate what people can and cannot do with the design itself. The pdf file for example you can make view only ( block printing). That would be asserting your copyright. Circumventing that is illegal and contestable in court.Analogy : you can prevent me legally from making a copy of a book, you can not prevent me legally from aplying or using the information i obtained from reading the book.By reading your schematic i gain information.I don't understand this obsession of having to attach 'ownership' to an open schematic. If you make something and want to share , throw it out there and let people do what they want with it. Don't restrict them. Any form of restriction is co tradictory to the notion of 'open'Or , keep it to yourself.All this licencing stuff is simply a vanity plate. I made this, look at me, wheee , you can build on it , mod it tweak it , but you need to credit me... I also want my 2 minutes of fame from your work...If i release something 'open' i don't care what happens to it and if i get credit for it. If it's a piece of sourcecode there will be a 'written originally by ...' In it and that's it. You can add your 'modified by...' below that... The reason there is simple : if anyone finds it and has questions, they know who to try to get a hold of. If it's a pcb or schematic i don't even bother. I may put a 'drawn by' on the sheet, but those things get lost anyway.So, in my view these 'licences' for something that is 'open' are moot...

author: Nirios
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2013, 04:18:48 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 09, 2013, 03:59:54 pmBecause it sounds cool and geeky.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2013, 05:08:25 pm
content: Pff. Back in the day (sheesh, grampa is talking now) we labeled it as 'public domain'. The unwritten understanding was : do whatever you want to it but never remove any names already in the comment field You can add your own. And if you take it closed source you must display the names somewhere.I booted an old HPuX machine a few days ago. Some network linraries in There are public domain. Hp does not provide source, but during boot the text 'network library written by blabla, public domain' flies by.Or a text network library based on work by blabla.And that's it. You do as you please with it. Take it closed source, sell it .. Whatever.Particular schematics is hard.You make a board with a non inverting opamp amplifier. You cant assert copyright to that .. That circuit was around before you were born....You use 1k 10k and an lm741.You don't own the design of the 741. Nothing prevents a chipmaker to integrate two resistors and sell it as a 10x gain amplifier. Especially if that chipmaker was the original designer of the 741...I take your 1k 10k and make it 4k7 47k... What are you going to do ?I read a bit the cern documentation ... One clause is particularly funny.. Documents must be made available in a public format..Like pdf ... Bwahaaaa. The most closed source format there is is. And as for cad they want what ? Eagle ? Since when is that the 'open sauce' standard. Its a paid program and as closed source as can be.Code and text copyright is si ple. Its a sequence of characters or binary patterns...Schematics ? Not so... Its like applying copyright to a painting. Look i painted a smiling lady , called it mona lisa and apply copyright to it. To what ? If i paint a smiling lady that is not yours. Even if i model mine after yours. If i take a photo of your picture you cant even claim copyright infringement.If i publish abook with photographs of your painting you can't claim copyright infringement !But, if you copy my book and sell it i can sue you.If i sell my painting as a mona lisa then you can sue me.You can't sue me for making a painting of a painting though....I think there is no framework to define what is copying of a schematic. Apart from a block that is patented.

author: alexanderhiam
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2013, 05:59:45 pm
content: QuoteWhere'd you see that? I have't noticed anything about preferring proprietary EDA software, that would be a huge flaw.QuoteWhen you put it that way, sure, but that's not the point of an open source license. It's about protecting people's right to continue to use/revise/redistribute the product. The goal, as I see it, is to help prevent the (albeit rare) situation where a company makes a similar product after you, grabs a patent, then sues you.Yes, it's a lot easier with software, and I don't think there's any open hardware license that does what something like GPL does for software, and I don't know that there ever could or should be exactly. But I do think it's more than just a vanity plate.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2013, 07:20:52 pm
content: Quote from: alexanderhiam on April 09, 2013, 05:59:45 pmif i put it in public domain they can do whatever they want with it.as for the making a similar product after me and patenting that then suing : can't do that. The Prior Art clause in patent law eliminates that.anyway , my irk is with the original posters comment ' i don't want anyone taking my idea closed source...'. As far as i can tell there is no way blocking that if you throw your design out there.Once you release something is 'Open' it;s like the proverbial can of worms. Once open, that's it ...You could argue for a PCB layout : i shuffle parts around, make a different formfactor , add a ground plane , make it a 4 layer board , go from thru-hole to SMD ... i did not modify the schematic in any way. Now you can argue i cloned your design...But once i start modifying parts values , parts types ( like better grade opamps ) , add circuitry of my own... replace a block in your system by a block i made ... and then re-hash the pcb layout...now you are in trouble proving this was built on your design...

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 09, 2013, 09:37:29 pm
content: Good work stands on its own regardless of license.. License is only going to affect the honest respectful people that would give you credit anyway without an explicit license.You instantly run the risk of someone jacking your work just by putting it out there. It's like putting a "no guns" sign on a college classroom. Boy, that sure stopped the VA tech shooter, didn't it?It won't do jack diddly-squat to prevent the chinese from cloning it.Putting a fancy bullshit OSHW license on something won't make a crappy circuit/pcb better. It's still crap.In my experience most of the people that are the most vocal about open sores hardware also suck the most at it. With a few exceptions.My 2 cents: instead of agonizing over useless licenses spend that time furthering your own knowledge to build better things

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2013, 12:55:36 am
content: Haha. The stupidity of such licences allows you to do the following :I made an LED blink i release this under 'Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported ' CC licenceThe following code is released under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons licence :written by vincent himpewhile 1port1 = 1sleep 1port1 = 0sleep 1wendthere you go. a blinky led for a microcontroller. you can build on it but must attribute the code to me , share your mods , and you can't sell it.i'll take it a bit further :code to make a pin high:The following code is released under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons licence :written by vincent himpeport1.0 = 1code to make a pin low:The following code is released under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons licence :written by vincent himpeport1.0 = 0There you go. Now any program in the world that makes a pin high , or low by writing a '1' ot '0' to it is subject to my license... since nobody applied one to it , even though this code may have been around for a long time, i claim i invented this myself and applied the license myself to it.so if i catch any program out there setting a pin high or low , not attributing the code to me , and not releasing the sourcecode and/or mods i will sue ...shall i post a bank account now ? i'm moving to fiji ...

author: Len
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2013, 02:00:39 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 10, 2013, 12:55:36 amYou are confusing patents and copyright. You can't copyright an idea. To sue for copyright infringement you have to prove that someone copied the actual code that you wrote. Which would be next to impossible because your code snippet is so short & simple that someone could come up with exactly the same thing by coincidence.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2013, 03:45:01 pm
content: Exactly !The snippet is too short...So where do you draw the line ? 10 lines of code ? 20 lines of code ? 50 lines of code ? 1000 lines of code ?How about a schematic ? 10 components ? 30 components ? 1000 components ?Before you answer , consider this :This is subject to a patent from Sun microsystems...Code:int v; // we want to find the absolute value of vunsigned int r; // the result goes hereint const mask = v >> sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT - 1;r = (v ^ mask) - mask;Two lines of code.... And two definition lines...Microsoft has a patent on 1 line of code .... Some bit manipulation operation that works only on x86 architecture and can be written in one line. Theor compilers generate that code. The object code is patented...Stuff to think about.I still consider all that open source lecence stuff nonsense. If you want to set it free , then do so. Release it to public domain. Done. All the rest is simply vanity and restriction.It's free but i want the credit.. It's free but you can't do this... If you imply restrictions then it is not free. Period.

author: Nirios
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2013, 05:15:30 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 10, 2013, 03:45:01 pmThose are perfect examples of why we need patent reform. The current system is broken. Software and business practices should be exempt from patents.

author: andyturk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2013, 03:38:56 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 10, 2013, 03:45:01 pmBingo!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2013, 04:51:48 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 10, 2013, 03:45:01 pmI want to make all my Flickr photos public domain, but they only offer the various Creative Commons license options

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2013, 04:57:38 am
content: I've been noticing a trend recently toward simple public domain for OSWH projects.

author: 0xFFFF
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2013, 05:25:09 am
content: Thanks people. I really didn't expect this sort of response but it helped clear everything up.I'm not going to bother with a license.At the end of the day I don't really care what people do with what I've made public. I just prefer it if people gave credit where credit is due and don't use it in closed source projects. I'll re-word this and put in to the files I upload.Thanks for your help.

author: kshitij
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 12:39:47 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 10, 2013, 03:45:01 pm1000 x. Make it either public domain or don't.Licensing should always have been simple, I agree. The original open source licenses were actually intended to prevent university research from evolving into a proprietary product (this was about 20 yrs ago). That was their only objective, for the most part. The gist of these licenses was that if you used some source code created using these licenses, you had to make the resulting source code public too.People (a.k.a, large corporations) started circumventing them by statically linking a few libraries (created using 'free' software source code), with their own code, and making their code proprietary, since it did not use any open source code directly, but was statically linked with libraries created from open source software. And that was when licensing became a complex issue, and all these license types started to emerge. And even then, companies still found their way around them. "Static linking considered open source? No problem. Use a dynamically linked library from an interpreted language, rather than a directly compiled one"Quote from: free_electron on April 10, 2013, 12:55:36 amAnd I claim that you simply modified my original code and sue you.To be awarded a patent, you need to prove genuineness or a significant improvement/modification over the original. Good luck proving how you modified my 'original' code.It doesn't matter if I didn't patent my code, as long as I have 'conclusive' evidence to prove my code/schematic existed before yours, and that you had access to it.Quote from: 0xFFFF on April 07, 2013, 11:05:50 pmThat makes up for a very nice license in itself, 0xFFFF.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 12:46:33 am
content: Quote from: kshitij on April 16, 2013, 12:39:47 amYeah, I rather like it. Feels a bit likethis.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 01:12:18 am
content: Quote

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 08:25:34 pm
content: Some comments here have me confused as to the discussion.These licenses providecopyrightprotection of hardware documentation and possibly board artwork? As I understand it, copyright only protects the "work" (image) itself. Not the intentional function or symbolic arrangement, right?So for example, if I protected my open source opamp circuit with a license, anyone could still make/modify/include/sell that same exactphysicalcircuit. What they couldn't do is distribute a photocopy of my documentation. Specifically my schematic or part of my schematic. The license has nothing to do with patents or how the circuit functions, right?I understand copyright software protection considering the governments' ridiculous stance on it....but for hardware? Why? Is it to protect the board artwork? Does it protect that, considering it's functional?How does a copyright license protect a hardware project, especially if there's no firmware?If someone is going to take your work and release it "closed-source", that means they are not releasing your 'protected' documentation. So even if you were using a license, they wouldnotbe in violation anyway.Is there a legal defense reason to release with a license? That is, could your own documentation could be (mis)used to force you into court?Wish this thread had more answers as I am genuinely curious. What is the point of hardware licenses?

author: LapTop006
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 01:05:04 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on April 10, 2013, 03:45:01 pmThis comes down to what in the software world is called the BSD vs GPL mindset, BSD is "here it is, do what you like", GPL is "here it is, do what you like, but if you ship changes you must ship source on our terms", both have good and fair reasons to exist (I'm generally in the GPL camp myself).One thing to add though, in many countries it's not actually possible to "put something in the public domain" without waiting for copyright to expire. If you want to publish something like that I'd suggest adding an explicitCC0tag to make it as clear as possible.

author: airiclenz
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2013, 10:25:24 am
content: I see your point in just making it available without any license - just free - but there is another point to the story. It is the protection by the license that might be of big interest too. What happens if you make something available for everyone just by providing the download, then someone - probably from the USA - uses it and burns his/her hand using your system. This person then sues you because your documentation did not mention that one does not touch the mains-cap after the board was plugged in...

author: 0xFFFF
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2013, 10:57:08 am
content: Quote from: airiclenz on June 18, 2013, 10:25:24 amDo I really need a license to protect me from stupid people?I'm no lawyer but that sounds like a bit of a stretch.Who's to say whatever it was that was made open source was fit for any purpose?

author: airiclenz
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2013, 11:20:15 am
content: ...just to make myself clear - I am not sure either, so it was more a question than anything else. Is there someone who can answer this?

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2013, 07:12:46 pm
content: Quote from: airiclenz on June 18, 2013, 11:20:15 amAt least the BSD/MIT/Apache licenses all include clauses disclaiming any liability. In BSD and MIT that's basically all the license says. I'm not as up on the longer more complex licenses, but I'd imagine they're all similar. It's probably a good idea for any OSHW license as well.Though I too find it hard to believe it's actually necessary. And if it is, rather sad.This came across my G+ feed the other day, and seems appropriate.

author: cthree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2013, 05:15:37 am
content: Just release it to the public domain unless you intend on defending your copyright privileges in court against a license violator. You aren't. Set it free.

author: cthree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2013, 05:21:33 am
content: Quote from: airiclenz on June 18, 2013, 10:25:24 amWhen you release something to the public domain you release all claims and rights to (and responsibility for) it. It doesn't belong to you anymore and unless you did it with the intent of causing injury, harm or mischief then it's not a crime and not your problem.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2013, 06:09:10 am
content: Sun/Oracle actually recently lost a case BIG on exactly that. They were trying to claim that Google (I think) copied their IP, and the only copying they could prove were the header files. Well, those were called functional (because there's no other way to do it and keep the compatibility), and thus were not copyrightable. That was one clued in judge - that particular judge was a part time programmer.

author: ddavidebor
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2013, 07:34:48 am
content: Quote from: cthree on July 06, 2013, 05:21:33 amThat depend by country and local law

author: cthree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2013, 03:51:31 am
content: Quote from: ddavidebor on July 06, 2013, 07:34:48 amIn some countries you can get life for an unhandled exception but only a small fine for having an orgy at an elementary school

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 04:56:49 pm
content: Quote from: 0xFFFF on April 07, 2013, 11:05:50 pmOpen source with restrictions is a half giving. Please reconsider.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 06:43:00 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on February 26, 2014, 04:56:49 pmOpen source with safeguards against leechers is strong open source.

author: jadew
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 06:47:15 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on February 26, 2014, 06:43:00 pmOpen source is all about lechers.

author: GiskardReventlov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 08:15:38 pm
content: Not sure if anyone mentioned it yet here but I recall that there have been no cases where a license was enforced and uncovered code that was changed and then that code was contributed to the actual open source to improve upon the original open source.I know some have revealed that Widget Corp. was using open sourced code and violating the license but many times it's just due to the Widget Corp. not having a clue. And during discovery phase of trial we find out yes they used the code but they didn't actually change a thing! So their only mistake was that they didn't post the code publicly. The code that they never changed.The other thing that I like to do is to reduce this problem to (there's no problem, see above). Are your ideas or methods so unique that no else has done it alreay? There are ~7billion people on the planet how many unique ideas can 1 person have? Sure there are some brilliant people but I doubt that there are that many unique solutions to solving problems that someone else hasn't arrived at as well. Blah, blah, blah right.Release it to the public domain.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 10:08:32 pm
content: Quote from: jadew on February 26, 2014, 06:47:15 pmIn that case you have no clue what open source is about. Doesn't matter... Lots of companies (big and small) where people do have a clue are involved in open source projects and are making lots of money with it even though they seem to give away their work for free. The interesting part is that customers don't pay for technology but for solutions. Open source is just technology. The money is in turning it into a solution.

author: jadew
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 11:41:14 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 26, 2014, 10:08:32 pmNo, I think you don't have a clue. The companies you're mentioning are the main lechers, it just happens that it fits their business model.They leach from existing code (which is usually the main reason they are open source) and they leach from contributions (altho the contributions from the general public are usually slim).Either way, nobody is farting rainbows here, they do it because they have to and if you think everyone should follow this "solution, not product" business model you need to wake up and realize that most software projects out there have no "solution" component, unless they suck so bad that you need someone to hold your hand while using them.

author: GiskardReventlov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 08:25:02 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 26, 2014, 10:08:32 pmYes that's been proven, proof is everywhere.I don't have the link but the title is:"Building an image processing pipeline with Python."They use a lot of open source and then augment with their own code to provide a solution.They use tesseract and opencv and others like Nginx, etc.