OSHWA: Open Source Hardware Certification Version 1 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 04:20:27 pm
content: Here it is!http://www.oshwa.org/2015/09/19/open-source-hardware-certification-version-1/What do you guys think?There's also theOpen Source Hardware Definitionif you want to take a look at what they think OSH implies."I'll just leave this here"

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 04:41:45 pm
content: Well, this explains everything.http://www.oshwa.org/about/our-team/These people don't seem to understand the concept of "unintended consequences". They have bright futures as career politicians and bureaucrats.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 11:25:27 am
content: Not a bad start, but probably way too late. Everyone uses the OSHWA logo regardless of whether their project is Open Source or not.Unfortunately the concept of OSH has never really taken off, and most time products described as "Open Source Hardware" don't meet even the basic definition.For example, Arduino do not publish design files for Arduino Zero. The first line of the OSHW definition says "1. DocumentationThe hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files". Yet Arduino claim the Zero is "fully Open Source". That claim is bullshit!You can also look at the list of people who endorse OSHW and see how many don't follow the OSHW definition, while still claiming to be "Open Source." Names like Makerbot, OpenROV.David Mellis who is involved with Arduino, is on the board of OSHWA. If even their own board members can't commit to their own OSH definition, what hope for anyone else?I think the fact is that without a strong mover like Richard Stallman and FSF, the principles and practice get so diluted by commercial interest that the term Open Source Hardware becomes meaningless, and is just a marketing buzzphrase like "environmentally friendly".Although Stallman didn't previously care about OSHW, he is now realising that to keep software open will require open hardware, as vendors lock in DRM into hardware, and breaking DRM is a criminal offence.

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 12:17:40 am
content: I'm working on some projects which I intend on opening up to what I believe to be "open source hardware."This particular lot appear to be more Social Justice Warriors than, say, Electrical or Mechanical engineers in the strict sense. This leaves me somewhat in doubt about their grasp of the subject. As such, what do you folks actually consider to be mandatory items for a piece of hardware to be properly "Open source"?One concern I have, via Dave's KiCad (I think) video, is that if you don't dev hardware in these tools, it can never be OSHW. This puts a kink in my desires right out of the box, as I use Eagle (regardless of what you think of that particular tool).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 12:37:10 am
content: Quote from: marshallh on September 22, 2015, 04:41:45 pmI find it very intriguing that none of them are electronics engineers as such, mostly the art/design/mech type people. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's just interesting to note.Is it that us EE's are just too blasé about forming and being involved in such things?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 12:46:53 am
content: The problem with the OSHW definition is that is leaves no room for companies to protect their product in arguably reasonable ways, thus probably forcing a lot of bigger companies to get scared and not open their designs up at all.For example, if a multimeter manufacturer wanted to produce an otherwise "open hardware" multimeter, but didn't want to release say the original CAD files for the case and mouldings (which would be useless to anyone except a direct cloner), how do they do it? They can't call it "OSHW" and use the logo for a product where they have otherwise made completely open in terms of schematics, firmware, protocols etc.This is the position Makerbot found themselves in.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 12:50:06 am
content: QuoteI'd love to see them try and enforce those finesBut I guess you have to have something token in there.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 01:53:48 am
content: It's worth remembering that where the whole "open source" idea comes from, and what's at its core: it comes from the software world, and the goal is for people to be in control of the system they use. (Well, that's the RMS interpretation of it anyway.) It is not part of even RMS' interpretation that everything has to be free for anyone. It's not unheard of for example to provide source code, but to also ask money for windows binaries for example.If I were to translate this thought to the hardware world, I would ask for:a schematic in order to understand the device I bought, and to be able to change it as I see fit.some way to correlate the schematic to the physical hardware.if software is involved in some way, the source code, and a way to modify the source and apply it to the device.I don't think that includes layout files, or things like moulds.Coming from the software world, the intention behind open source is quite clear for me. It's to enable understanding and modification, not cloning and freeloading. While those latter effects might be inherent with software, they're not with hardware, and I don't see why they should be.

author: DrGeoff
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 02:50:58 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 26, 2015, 12:50:06 amSounds like a bunch of idiot bureaucrats getting involved. A designer takes the time and effort to open their designs to the public for free and suddenly they want you to be compliant to some arbitrary spec and fine you if you are not?Count me out. I make designs, circuits, pcb's available on my site and that's it. People download them, use them, get gerber files to make the design directly, or use the pdf of the schematic to recreate it in the CAD software of their choice and change it however they wish. Since I use proprietary CAD software then there is no point making the designs available that way. However I'm not going to switch to something else just to keep a bunch of bureacrats happy.Software is just text source files, usuually intended for a particular compiler. Others can port it to whatever compiler/toolset they want. Same with hardware designs. They can be ported to whatever tool the end user wants.

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 09:03:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 26, 2015, 12:46:53 amCan't they just call the board open source hardware and say something like "OSHW inside"?Quote from: marshallh on September 22, 2015, 04:41:45 pmI don't get your meaning, but I've met Addie in Innsbruck. She's part of thelasersaurproject, and an overall nice person.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 09:12:18 am
content: Quote from: con-f-use on September 26, 2015, 09:03:59 amNot really, because the OSHW Association have kind of hijacked the term. And you certainly can't/shouldn't use the logo without meeting the "definition" as laid down by them. Of course none of it is legally enforceable, it's a community vibe thing.If I had a project that didn't meet the terms, I wouldn't put the logo on it, and I'd just use the simple term "Open Hardware" or something like that.Of course, in practice tons of people use the logo without giving two hoots about if they actually meet the definition or not.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 09:18:37 am
content: QuoteSo there will be a new certification logo. They aren't looking to enforce (nor could they) the current "open gear" logo.I suspect few will bother to sign up, and will just continue to use the old gear logo the way they always have.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 09:29:45 pm
content: It's clear that no one here really understands what Open Source means, deeply ironic since the forum is entitled "Open Source Hardware"To answer the question why EE's don't care about Open Source. IME most EE's are quite mercenary, and rarely like to give away anything "for free". If there is even a remote possibility of a profit to be made, they want a cut. The idea that someone else could make money off their work ("freeload") generates a brain seizure.It always puzzles me why anyone would want to call something Open Source, without actually being Open Source. It's like publishing a "Vegetarian Cookbook", where all the recipes require meat.Strangely, software guys have less of a problem with being altruistic. It is also noticeable that software guys tend to be more left/liberal whereas hardware guys tend to be right/conservative. Lefties being more community-minded and righties driven by the profit motive.I published a genuinely Open Source Hardware design, and some Chinese company is making and selling it. I don't see a cent of that, and I don't mind, in fact it is what I wanted to happen. That is what Open Source means.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2015, 09:35:40 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 26, 2015, 12:46:53 amYou may not have heard of these new things called "3D Printers". Apparently they can take CAD files and create plastic objects, cheaply and right in your own home!Even if not, you may have heard of "milling machines", or even a "saw" which can be used to create enclosures from a variety of materials, given an accurate drawing, possibly derived from a CAD file.I guess what the manufacturer is looking for is the "Not Really Open License But We Want To Say It Is To Look Trendy" license.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2015, 01:00:33 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on September 26, 2015, 09:35:40 pmHow may people are going to want to 3D print their own multimeter enclosure?QuoteAnd what's wrong with wanting to release some stuff and not others? Does it have to be "all or nothing"? Why?

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2015, 12:10:51 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on September 26, 2015, 09:29:45 pmI know exactly what it means. It means the death of capitalism. True, I read so on their website:In my opinion, OSH is a revolution – economical and cultural. The open source movement creates a lot of value for society and destroys value for classical economic entities (corporations who operate on a closed model relying on intellectual property). This errodes the capitalist model and some people are very worried about it. They perceive open source (OS) as a menace. I am predicting an IP war between OS communities and classical economic entities, similar to the one we’ve seen in the realm of culture (the copyright war).Pity I can't find a bong-smoking emoticon.QuoteYes, it awesome. Now all these arty-farty "makers" who previously could find nothing better to do with their Ardwinos (or whatever they're called) than make useless half-finished LED blinkies can now devote their creative energies to making their very own butt-plugs and dildos in the comfort and freedom of their own home:http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/01/14/safely-enjoy-3d-printed-sex-toy/

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2015, 03:10:12 pm
content: I like you. Let's be eFriends. (Pity I can't yet send you a beer over the internet.)

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2015, 11:23:15 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on September 26, 2015, 09:29:45 pmI think it's a lot simpler, and a lot less mercenary than you describe.Perhaps it's because the physical cost of software is essentially zero, open-source software doesn't cost the developers anything other than their time. (Yes, time is money, blah blah, and Internet service isn't free, either, but you get my drift.)But making hardware is most assuredly not free. Getting PCBs made is not free (or even cheap). Parts aren't free. Enclosures and metalwork are seriously not free. So even the most altruistic open-source devotee might want to see those costs covered. Selling the design as a product seems to be the most straightforward way to do that.QuoteI suppose I'm the oddball EE who is a liberal, but seriously I don't think you can define things in such a clear-cut manner. That said, I like to be paid for my work, because the mortgage lender wants dollars, not schematics, and the kid needs to eat.

author: timofonic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2015, 04:04:37 pm
content: My conclusion to this group:- Certainly OSHWA has shady practices. I would call them "Poser Light Blinkers Hipsters Shady Association" (PLBHSA) or "Poser Electronics Hobbyists Wanting Money Association" (PEHWMA). This is just another moneylaundring NGO, being involved in stuff with cool names. Other than that, this is just a way of self-promotion to become more interesting and maybe become more popular.- They are tainting the "Open Hardware" term with even more shit.- The penalties policy sounds as a extortionist way to get money, not to promote "Open Hardware". It certainly can have a negative and destructive effect in the community.- Are there anyone really relevant in that group?* Arduino was killed by money greed and ego:**They just are relevant because of past projects.** It's just a trend, because there are cheap development kits that are manufactured by chinese too.** Similar projects will appear, maybe even directly promoted by Atmel and other microcontroller manufacturers if they are smart enough: The days of expensive devkits are going to stop, students will use the tools they feel more comfortable with and this is a way to make them stick to your platform than others.* Most sites in the list of signers are unavailable, mostly irrelevant, broken, outdated or closed: I checked it.I'll provide an informal and personal proposal about the Electronics FOSS in a new post. I'll put a link here.

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 05:18:45 am
content: basically hardware is born free - absent active patents - you have to take specific action to gain limited time protectionhardware is different - and engineers know it - you either have a limited time patent, practice a trade secret with contractual terms or you've already given away anything about physical hardware disclosed in publication, or discoverable by any degree of inspection, "reverse engineering" any sold product absent binding contracts protecting secrecyphysical hardware, "inventions", "useful works" are not within the scope of copyright - you can't apply the principles to hardwaredesign documentation however can be copyright protected - you can use "open source" copyright ideas to control (including "freeing") some classes of exact copies of some design documents - but not the ideas, design principles, however "inventive" - you have to get a patent to have any legal basis for controlling hardwareread the link in this post from the other thread:Quote from: tekbasse on November 04, 2015, 07:12:59 pm

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 09:20:27 am
content: Quote from: timofonic on November 04, 2015, 04:04:37 pmDude, nobody is going to voluntarily pay fines to an organization with pretend lawful authority. I don't know to what extent trademark law would even apply here; IP (such as a logo) is typically trademarked by an individual, company or organization for that individual, company or organizations exclusive use. And in any case, even if you legitimately have IP protected under trademark law, that only gives you the power to take legal action against infringing parties, not the jurisdiction over the courts to enforce the law yourself or devise of or dictate the actual penalties. If this "association" aggressively attempted to collect their stated fines from a perceived infringer/abuser of their logo it would be my guess that they'd be treading a very fine line between simply existing in their own little fantasy world and actually violating real world criminal codes, particularly relating to fraud and extortion.

author: timofonic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 07:49:10 pm
content: Quote from: GK on November 11, 2015, 09:20:27 amI agree with you, but I think they might do their own bubble until it explodes

author: AlxDroidDev
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2016, 04:09:59 am
content: It would be quite ironic if OSHWA trademarks the logo. Since trademark is a sort of IP protection, they'll be doing the exact same practice they're trying to fight.IMHO, they are helpless.Enforcing OSH rules should be left to the general community, not to a shady organization. It works that way with OSS, why wouldn't it work with OSH?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2016, 05:33:32 am
content: It's almost cute when people with zero standing try to play "official"... They're so up themselves that they think people care about their clubhouse rules.Their rules for Open Source Hardware are silly, so I just make Open Hardware or Public Domain Hardware instead (when I actually have time to make hardware anymore...) and spare myself having to be associated with them

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 15, 2016, 06:06:05 am
content: Quote from: AlxDroidDev on January 15, 2016, 04:09:59 amActually, what are the ramifications of Trademarking their new compliance logo?Technically, would every person who wants to use it have to sign a trademark license contract or some such?I don't think you can have everyone using your logo willy-nilly without formal contracts in place and then be in a position to actually defend that trademark?It's starting to sound like a bureaucratic death spiral.

author: timofonic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 06:02:46 pm
content: Quote from: GK on January 18, 2016, 01:12:34 pmLow standards, you are too used to cheap parts

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2016, 12:11:51 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 26, 2015, 12:46:53 amI don't see the problem here.The manufacturer can still just open source the technical aspect of it, eg the PCB and documentation, but keep the visual aspects closed sourced.Pretty much the same how patents work, were there is a clear difference between utility patents and design patents.Some people may argue if that's completely according to the 'open source vibe'. In my opinion, the open source mentality is all about making it a better world (literally). Because of the closed (and imo arrogant) character of patents, technology and improvement stops where the patent ends.Even if that patents helps the entire world on any kind of way, there is no way someone else is able to improve that product even more.We are limited by the ideas, skills and even intentions of the patents owner(s). So if their goal is just selling as much as possible (which unfortunately is mostly the case), to bad for the rest of us.This is especially true in the medical sector, but off course it applies to many other ideas.If we go back to to just the case and moldings, eg the visual aspect of a product, in my opinion it isn't part of the product itself.Or said on a different way, you can make a very ugly case, no case, a black case or green case, the multimeter will always just work as a multimeter.On the other hand, one could also say that about the PCB, which sometimes have a clear visual aspect as well.So I think it would be wise to define this a little better in the OSHW definition.In my opinion it must be something like that a designer must provide the ESSENTIALS to make a working product.(if it's about a completely finished product like a multimeter)Offtopic:I have a very huge problem with paid memberships. The idea is IMO 180 degrees against the whole OSHW spirit. The whole idea is that everything is open and equal. With paid memberships the whole essential idea is just by definition kicked away, because certain people gain more benefits by having a bigger wallet. Absolutelyunacceptable!!!!!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2016, 12:22:26 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on July 25, 2016, 12:11:51 pmI agree.Unfortunately that's not in the spirit of the OSWH definition and those who defined it, so I doubt "they" will ever change that.QuoteI like the idea I came up with (biased of course) and mentioned on the Amp Hour a while back.An OSHW logo that includes different "levels" of openness visible in it's logo.e.g. A different letter (or whatever) in each "tooth" in the logo that you can add based on what you make available.For example,Just a schematic get one level.Schematic + PCB files get you another.Firmware another.CAD files anotherBOM anotheretc.QuoteYep, it's a dumb bureaucratic idea.So what's the update? it's been a while since this was proposed, did it grow any legs?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2016, 12:36:36 pm
content: Ah, they have a new logo:http://www.oshwa.org/2016/06/06/updates-on-the-oshw-certification-mark/

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2016, 12:44:27 pm
content: In addition to my previous post. Off course you can also use it the other way around.So the visual aspects (= equivalent design patent) could be open source, but the technological aspect (= equivalent utility patent) is closed.Or a mix.I guess the different degree of openness is a very good idea, but I don't know how that can be done on a practical way.What if someone just shares parts of the schematic or parts of the BOM?I also think that the definitions on each level has to be very genuine.The 'hardware' aspect could also be used for woodworking for example, or even gardening.Drawings/blue-prints of these things are very equivalent to a schematic, although the jargon is different.Btw, that 'they' need to change the definition, doesn't make sense to me.Open source is open source, which means that by definition their definition (lol, no pun) is open source as well!!That means that I can copy their definition, change it with credits and make it open source again so other people can develop the definition further and further. That includes logos, drawings, documents and everything that is needed.Open source, with a closed source certificate/definition is otherwise a perfect example of being extremely hypocritical.So Dave, if you like to change these aspects, there is no one who can stop you doing it, hence the definition of being and acting open source.edit:I like the gear logo much much more.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2016, 01:23:04 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on July 25, 2016, 12:44:27 pmOf course. Anyone can do anything they want. But in the end it's about community buy-in.it would be silly for everyone to define their own standard and way of doing things.QuoteI know, and it's been way down on my to-do list.Perhaps I'll use my down time after the knee operation to work on it and publish something.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2016, 02:03:17 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2016, 01:23:04 pmIf you need some serious pare of hands, don't hesitate to contact me.It has been on my list for a while as well. More to set it up much broader. Clean up the mess if you will.I see many great ideas popping out of the ground here and their, but I don't see one coherent structure in it at all.I am also talking about the more serious projects (no offense, but most OSHW I see are just little sensor boards and so on).Besides, whole sections of electronics designers are not really involved at all (think about audio section for example, really big, but mainly ruled by big $$$ companies).But it all starts with those kind ideas like yours. Ideas that make a lot of sense!Good luck with your knee btw!(it's so bloody annoying not really being able to to stuff that way)

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2016, 02:35:30 pm
content: I have been thinking about the logo thing, but I think just a number in the middle or a word would be easier.Something like bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond names etc.Or just numbers from 0-10, were 10 is fully open source.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2016, 12:51:02 pm
content: Alright, well this is what I like to propose.Please let me know what you guys think of it.I also like to add that it has to be usable for all kinds of fields, so not only electronics.The idea can be used from a technical point of view, but from a visual point of view as well.Let me come back to that a little later.Number in LogoAwardMeaning1BronzeLowest, only schematic/blue print/plan has been shared. This document contains enough to make a copy. With some more effort a second user can make his own PCB1+Bronze +Same as bronze but documents are shared in an Open Source format2SilverPlans/schematics are being shared and PCB files as well (GERBER + original)2+Silver +Same as Silver but again all files are in Open Source format3GoldSilver + mechanical plans/ideas are being shared3+Gold +All documents are made in Open Source software4PlatiniumAll documents are being shared to make, build or sell a full working product5DiamondEverything is shared in Open Source format (and maybe in even other formats) so everybody should be able to use itThis table has been written from the perspective of an electronic engineer, but it can also being used as for woodworkers, design engineers, visual artists etc. Obviously it needs improvement to cover all of that, but I just wanted to start somewhere. There are other people out there who are better with words than I amFirst, let me give a number of examples to make it clear.I think the best example of a full Diamond award product, could be a 3D printer or CNC machine.It clearly combines mechanical, visual and electronic parts. You need all of these documents to make a full working copy or to improve the product.However, the concept of a (new) 3D print doesn't necessarily has to start with the electronics. People could start with the mechanics first and just later on develop additional electronics. In that case the descriptions in the table can be seen the other way around.Another example is that a product can grow, maybe a multimeter for example.So it starts with a prove of concept, let's say a working schematic.From there a second person develops a PCB.Than a third person designs a nice case and so we have a working product at the end.This whole idea is written from the perspective of a full working end product (salable as a working product)In my opinion that's where it is all about at the end.The consumer needs a clear and transparent idea how a product is made.An amplifier for example, can't be used on it's own, but it also needs a case and knobs to make it work.In practice that means that most designs on this forum would I think end with Silver + at max, unless someone develops a nice case as well.A Freeduino is an example of a Silver award (Eagle is not free open source and with the free version it's not possible to use it on a commercial way).I think most (but not all!) Arduino boards are in the same category.A Raspberry Pi doesn't get any awards (only parts of the schematics can be found).Daves ucurrent project is a Silver award, because it's not made in open source software. (correct me if I'm wrong)If he would spend some time in more documentation about the case, the whole product could get a Gold award.(or even Platinum for people who like to 3D print/make the case from scratch)The big question is, how far does someone need to go to get an certain Open Source award?A 3D printer can be completely build from open source hardware, except the power supply.Wall adapters are very cheap nowadays, so why why even bother right?I guess in this case we need to look if the design of the power supply is essential to make the 3D printer work.The 3D printer is being build to print stuff, if the power supply is open or closed, doesn't change that.But what about the electronics for the stepper motors?Another difficult point is how to judge products with multiple products in it.A car for example is very complicated and contains even multiple smaller products.It could be that not all of these products are fully open source.My best idea is to take an average of the award numbers and round it.On top of that, to get a + (or diamond) award, ALL documents need to be open source.So, this is a long story and brainstorm out of my head.I personally think it's important to make OSHW much more clear and transparent.There are to many people and companies out there who claim to be open source.The question is, how open are they exactly?Oh, btw, I attached a little picture about the idea how the number is shown on a PCB for example

author: prasimix
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2016, 06:54:45 am
content: Good work b_force. I'm not sure that when existing "gear" sign is use that there is enough space in the middle to print "award number" using PCB silkscreen printing. But it's central position looks good.I didn't understand remark about Eagle. It's free version has PCB size limitation but it can be used to generate Gerbers files without limits (and that you need for manufacturing/replication). Do you think that open source project need to be designed in tools that allows second user to modify it without limitation? The same question is with mechanical modeling. Do you presume that CAD tool has to be free or open source? If yes, that we can think about another level (maybe "minus" as an opposite to suggested "plus" sign) when used development tools are not FOSS?I'm trying to offer my current project as open as possible, actually I'd like to end it withDFM. Could you as an exercise take a look and let me know what number it deserve? (GutHubHW,SW,homepage).

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2016, 08:46:31 pm
content: Quote from: prasimix on July 30, 2016, 06:54:45 amThe text inside the gear logo is 1mm, which should be more than enough to print.Suggestions are always welcome.I find the idea of using a 'minus' the other way around. It is about sharing your project in the first place.If that project is being made in open source software, that deserves an extra point.You can say that it's more open source if you will.I am not quiet sure if free programs can also be considered as open source.In the case of DesignsSpark for example, people will have full access without any limitations.On the other hand, the software itself is not open source.In the case of Eagle, it's a bit more complicated.Yes, you can export GEBER files etc with the free version, but you can't edit/further develop the design.I personally don't agree that GERBER files are enough, those are only necessary for the PCB kitchen chefs.GERBER files are not equal to the source. It's like giving someone a magazine, but not the original office files to edit that magazine.Or a video, but not the original files with all the layers/channels.To help you decide which open source award you get, you just have to follow the table.In short, are all files accessible (schematics, BOM's, PCB, GERBER) in a way that people can make a copy and/or edit and modify your project?If the files are made with open source software (like KiCad), ad a '+'.Do the same for the mechanical side.I think most projects will end with a Gold or Platinum award, because it is really difficult to do everything in open source software.(although not impossible)edit:Maybe free (but not open source) software can be done with an asterisks (*) ?So a number without anything is made with closed source software where a license is needed.A number with a asterisks is made with free software (but not open source, like Designspark)At last the number with a + means that also the software is opensource.

author: CM800
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2016, 03:45:42 pm
content: I think we should accomidate for open source firmware but close source hardware.Or a closed source product that has a open source backplane with decent documentation (for example a lab-rack which allows people to develop their own modules with an open expandable interface.)An open source design that uses a closed source control chip, like an ASIC-on-a-board e.g. ESP series or those little bluetooth boards.For example, if I design a big 4 axis cnc controller and have a small closed source board that plugs in. I should really be able to say the cnc controller is open source, teating the plugin as a chip.(I mean logically saying no to that is like saying open-source requires everything to be made out of discreet transistors.)does that make sense?I know it's not 'proper open source' however encouraging products like that would make the world a better place by far.EDIT:Maybe we should consider it somthing like 'Hacker Friendly'.HF mark anyone?

author: prasimix
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2016, 03:57:18 pm
content: Hm, what kind of world open hardware can make? Perhaps one that is too good to be true, an utopia? I can imagine how people that comes from software industry is willing open hardware and vice versa. Something like: open your heart but I'll keep my secrets for myself (just in case) ... or just because I'm not confident that I can survive such opening. Didn't get your point. It looks like a great step for hermetically closed environment, but here we are discussing about complete openness and means how to recognize and label it. That can be a tool to identify all that attempts to promote something as open hardware that it is not.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2016, 04:43:20 pm
content: @ TCWilliamsonYes it makes a little sense and it is in line what I was trying to say.Having everything open source is an utopian kind of idea.I mean, how far do people want to go? Because very literally speaking, if I take a certain DSP or even an opamp, people might say it's not open source anymore??(speaking of which, the OSHW community is by itself operating on a closed way, and are even debating about asking a fee for downloading the OSHW license)So by definition, there is a very big grey area and there will be certain 'levels' how open source something is.In other words, if we follow this definition, even open source software is an utopia and non-existing.At the end it simply comes down to standard copyrights.But the whole idea I guess, is to give some kind of guideline.People like to develop things for the community and others like to improve it.That's the whole concept of open source (and biggest difference with closed patents)I personally still believe that it is also the only way to get the best products on the market, because there are no profits involved.A company with a patent could just freeze the whole development and sell his product forever.Other companies can compete with a different approach, but you may end up with only a bunch of mediocre products, instead of improving the original idea.With labels you get at least a better kind of sense what's going on.Some people might take advantage of it, but that's not a huge difference than without any labels.Those labels are only about the main and essential functions of the product.So if your product uses a uController with very specific software and that software is not available, it is not open source.Even if the rest of your idea is entirely open, the whole thing is useless if people can't use your code.

author: CM800
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2016, 10:10:05 am
content: It is a tricky line of thinking.If I choose to use a chip that nobody else provides, for example a Trinamic motion control chip. Its that still open-source?.... And is it as open source as me developing my own ASIC, documenting it and selling it, along with developing it into an open-source project?The idea of all designs being open and free -is- utopian and it leaves them to violation where people can take other people's work, close it up and make a few visual changes then sell it (exactly what I see with people taking rep-rap controllers, removing a few components then selling it in £15,000 printers)I certainly promote opensource, however at the end of the day we all still need job to put a roof over our head and food in our mouths.I think there does need to be recognition of 'open' / hackable products or some sort of method for companies to still profit off it reasonably without loss of sales and other companies quickly stealing their designs / products and rebranding. It's corprate suicide to open your product up fully.

author: prasimix
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2016, 10:26:57 am
content: Quote from: TCWilliamson on August 03, 2016, 10:10:05 amYes, especially if company operating too long on closed/patentable premise. Decision to become more open can seriously endanger complete operation because such decision is not enough without actions to change corporate climate and their work force (firing old and faithful and employ new/young and "crazy") to start to thinking what openness can bring to them and not how it is dangerous for its enterprise. Not many people can change a side without been seriously disturbed. Companies like Sparkfun is in much better position to survive openness because that was corporate reality from day one.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2016, 11:37:31 am
content: The guys from Sparkfun summarizes exactly what I said.Thinking that a patent will save your ass is utopian as well, and thinking that it is the only way to save/earn money is simply untrue.Every professional company knows exactly what and how their competitors are doing.They all reverse engineer other products (or don't bother because they simple already know).In the end they change a few minor things to bypass the patent, put extra effort in their PR and salesmen and they are good as gold.Second to that, it's a misunderstanding and naive way of thinking that technology sells (sorry everyone).You can have an amazing idea, which is state of the art from a technological point of view, but if you don't know how to promote it, it's isn't worth a single penny.It's all about timing, looks, knowing ('bribing') the right people and putting a pretty face on it.If we go back in history you'll find thousands of ideas that were much better on paper, but they where a big fail instead.Most companies don't even work from a patent and are just being fancy about their so called special amazing secret 'voodoo' solution.Which works great for the majority of the costumers, who think it's all special and unique.For a trained eye it is just the same principal covered in a fancy coat.So it doesn't matter if you open source that or not. For the majority it is still amazing voodoo.Nowadays, patents are only being used for threatening people or for sales (something has a patent, so it must be good!!)In some cases you don't really need to worry if you are not a direct competitor.For example, I produce certain high power audio amplifiers modules with a very obvious feedback loop that I was lucky enough to patent.All set you might think, but this is where the trouble starts, because now I have the search actively if people infringe my patent.Secondly, some others companies can use a totally different amplifier (but withonlythe same feedback loop) in end products for a very specific market.In other words, they don't sell amplifiers modules like I do.The question is, am I gonna spend effort in hunting people who infringe my patent that way or do I focus on better and new products?By the way, the feedback loop patent is a great story where patents do more harm than good.I have even read stories about that a certain (but only usable) formula has a patent.In both examples it is to unfortunate if the company has a great patent but just very mediocre (and expensive) products.To me it's all just a waste of effort, energy and moneyAnyway, I think we are going off track here.The idea is to discuss about how to define and use open source hardware, not discuss if open source will work or not

author: magetoo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2016, 07:54:19 pm
content: Something about "open hardware" has seemed just a bit off to me, and I just thought of a reason why that might be. Rant follows.How an open license should look like depends on what the goals of the people behind it are. What are the goals of an open hardware license?For example, the whole FSF/GNU/etc endeavor has as its goal that a user of a piece of software should always be able to modify it; therefore the GNU GPL is written in such a way that it precludes not making the source code available.As time has gone on, the license has grown into a complex legal document in order to plug loopholes that could be used to keep users from changing software they use - for example version 3 came about due to a situation where users could see the source code, change the source code, but the device that ran the software would refuse to use the modified version.The BSD/MIT/ISC/etc school of thought comes about from starting with a completely different goal, that of being able to publish ones work for anyone to use while still keeping the right to be identified as the author. There hasn't been much need to close loopholes, and these licenses as a consequence are short and completely human readable.So what's the goal of having a license for opening up hardware designs? If the goal is that a user should be able to make changes, then it seems that you would need clauses that require publication of schematics and documentation, including the theory behind how circuits work, and perhaps descriptions of why design decisions have been made certain ways and not others.If the goal is just that people should be allowed to make copies, then requiring that PCB design files, BOMs, etc be make available might be enough. (But that's not all that interesting.)One other possible goal might be to support the open source software movement. In that case, it would make sense to require that the design files use open formats, that no binary-only firmware blobs are required, and likely many other things.But what is the goal, exactly? I haven't seen this clearly articulated anywhere. Perhaps it's just that different people have different ideas and can only agree on a few things?Whatever the reason, the open hardware movement looks like a cargo-cult copy of the open source software movement, in my opinion. Licenses and logos, but where are the big projects that build on previous work to make something new?

author: @rt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 06:47:12 am
content: I recently let some software go under GPL v2.Nothing really seems to fit what I want, which is really only that anyone can do whatever they want with it except for use it in a commercial product, and make money from it when I didn’t make money for writing it.The project has hardware to follow as well, so makes it relevant.It seems a fairly simple wish, but even GPL doesn’t seem to really cover that.It just seems that a manufacturer would have to release source code, but could still make a product.So for that reason alone, I don’t understand why anyone would care about so called “open source” and be happy with that.It has happened to me before by the way, just that the project was trivial, and would now take me half a day for the hardware and software..... but still it leaves a bad taste.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 08:01:19 am
content: Quote from: b_force on August 02, 2016, 04:43:20 pmA company without patent protection my not be able to justify the financial risk in the first place. Patents were created for a reason. Pharmaceutical companies try to extend patent protection by making tiny changes. Even with the possibility of patent protection pharmaceutical companies are not pursuing some areas because the economics are marginal.QuoteI think it is logically inconsistent to partition a project into a part, even a majority part, that isentirely openand another part that is closed. If it isn't actually entirely open then it is entirely closed. People who try to fragment an idea or project into an open part and a closed part do so for their own personal motives. Motives that are not consistent with the spirit of creating something that others can reproduce and modify and in so doing further benefit the world.I have come, in what limited thinking I have applied to the concept of open source, to this way of looking at it.I have applied the Darwinian theory of evolution to the definition of Open Source. If the project is fully documented and reproducible by someone else then they have the opportunity to modify it. All people who are interested can modify it. That pool of people in my evolution analogy form the "environment" into which the idea has to establish its fitness to survive. The poor ideas will not attract others and will die off in favour of ideas that find a greater number of people who seek to reproduce and modify it. Those modifications form the genetic mutation that further carries the idea and strengthens its claim as fit to survive as the requirements of the environment change.If the idea cannot be reproduced and evolve in an environment then my definition is it is NOT open. That alone is the necessary and sufficient condition.Taking that definition and extending the analogy of evolution as it applies in real world debates in opposition to creationists and other religious beliefs. I come to the view that after having established an idea in the above terms that further debate around the nature of what it or is not open can be classified as a "religious debate".Fine points relating to whether open source compilers and design software must be used, or whether English (or other) only documentation and not a variety of languages is provided, or whether single source semiconductors are used and so on are not material to my particular definition of open. The debate on those matters can be put into the definition but doing so will necessarily reduce the number of open source projects. I won't say it is not valid to do so but I cannot see the debate ever reaching universal agreement and hence I see little value in insisting on them.So for me it is sufficient and necessary that an idea can be reproduced and it is less important how it can be reproduced.An analogous way of looking at it is you don't have to be pretty to reproduce but it's nice if you are.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 01:06:50 pm
content: @ wilfredThe reasons why patents were invented is pretty obvious I think.How it's being done in practice is something else. It pretty much comes down to the point that the person/company with the biggest wallet wins.I like your analogy with evolution. That's also exactly my point what I have against patents.With patents, evolution stops. Good ideas can't being taken a step further (as in, I company can have a wonderful idea, but bad implementation) and if somebody has marketing skills; enough bad ideas overrun everything (including big myths)Unfortunately we live in a world that's based on making and investing as much money as possible.That's the reason why I don't think a black and white approach is gonna help and there I do believe it is possible to be partially open (or closed).It's just practical compromise that's necessary, also because there are people around who just wanna take a ride with someone else's ideas.