Talk:Open-design movement

message: Need this article be so biased towards CAD and CAD technologies? Essentially open design is more about the sharing of knowledge and development data in whatever form that may take. I would like to see a more basic definition, that would better encompass existing and previous examples of open collaborative design, from Papanek's examples of appropriate technology to the burgeoning resources on home designed and built items now seen on the internet ('hack' if you will). What do others think?
Royshearer 13:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, a completely valid point. I added the section about CAD as it will become necessary for more advanced collaborative design projects, but as you rightly say, there is plenty more to open design as well. Feel free to add to the article - CharlesC 17:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Hi, it seems that the links on this page occupy more space then the content.  I think that many of the links are only extremely loosely related to open design, and as such should be removed.  The remaining links should be organized in a better fashion.  I will go through the links and remove the dead weight.  If i removed something important, please put it back in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazcazcaz (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to organize the links 

message: Ultimately, if Open Design were to ever be considered at all seriously, there would be a need for some (at least menial, if not more substantial) methods of distributing monetary rewards or similar allocations based upon certain design ideas (without just being a replacement for the current patents system, or having problems that plague current systems).  
The time and effort expended by engineers/designers, etc... should be rewarded in some way whilst at the same time allowing for the Open Design philosophy to be maintained (in any community, there will always be a small number of highly gifted contributors capable of offering innovative design ideas, but the concept of 'common good' would surely not allow for small numbers of individuals to gain 'excessively' large amounts of money or undue influence over the Design community).
:It would likely mirror the open source software world in many respects. There is plenty to take seriously in with open source and probably the majority of that work is unpaid - it is not usually a full-time job. The work the open-source programmer does adds to the ecosystem of other projects that exist and are freely available to use. So what goes around, comes around - this person can make use of all this other software which ultimately saves him money, when the alternative is to buy something proprietary.
:However there are some organisation that pay open-source programmers to contribute, and the same may become true when open design kicks off properly. Various philanthropists or charities may pay people to work on problems, but copyleft the designs for anyone to make use of.
:It may be that a whole alternative 'economy' emerges from this open culture and that although a contributor may not be financially rewarded for his efforts, more and more of his life is able to be conducted using open tools and open products meaning that his outgoings are significantly reduced as a result. Who knows what may eventually emerge from this culture if advanced automation and national infrastructure become an 'open source' affair. These are ideas I am exploring in my website http://www.adciv.org. - CharlesC 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  methods of distributing monetary rewards -- One such method for rewarding people who put a lot of time and effort into developing a design, and yet still publish those plans in such detail that other people can reproduce the design "at cost", is called the Street Performer Protocol. Another one that several groups are currently using is the Threshold pledge. As you said before, another method is for philanthropists to pay the salary of such people. Should we mention all these methods in this article? --75.48.165.135 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not (if these methods really are being used for open-source design). My previous paragraph above was just mentioning what I saw as plausible reward mechanisms, I didn't know if they were being used yet! --CharlesC 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Design and Money for Designers

message: Under the heading, "Focused organizations", there is a sentence fragment: "Features limited message board type collaboration." Since I'm not familiar with this topic, I haven't a clue as to how to fix it. Thanks.—Chidom talk  09:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence fragment 

message: I think that 'Open source design' might a more descriptive name for this article. 'Open design' sounds a little ambiguous. Does anyone feel strongly either way? --CharlesC 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title modification

message: This is turning into a great article -- one that deals with subject matter I am particularly interested in.  I am concerned about the amount of original research and opinions in this work though -- most of it unreferenced. ThreeE 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great, but Original Research? 

message: Perhaps a paragraph can be added about the individual getting more powerful trough crowdsourcing, and internet-related activities (eg harvesting power of botnet, ...). Can be used for environmental purposes, according to John Arquila. Gathering info from protected sites may also be useful for building gyroscopes, and robotic systems according to Shawn Carpenter (latter useful for certain environmental systems). See Cybercrime documentary (http://www.gsnmagazine.com/cms/market-segments/critical-infrastructure/458.html )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.186.75 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Individuals getting more power

message: I think they are the same...--Kozuch (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Open design is the process and Open source hardware is one of the products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True. However I think this needs to be made more clear in the article...--Kozuch (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I agree with Alan. Open Design is the process through which the open source hardware product is created. --User:Mdkoch84 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Open source hardware 

message: Should be written in a better simpler way. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reside in a different paradigm"?? 

message: As well as the recent, electronics orientated view of this article, its worth noting that more old fashioned things like woodworking, arts and crafts, and DIY were examples of open design and reprap type things, even though that terminolgy was not used in the past. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIY 

message: As the first sentence of this article states, "Open design is the development of physical products, machines and systems through use of publicly shared design information."  The "semi-open" section consisted of what looked like spam. ODA/Intellicad products are not open in design or source. Krushia (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: someone added ODA again without adding a comment here. so I'm removing them. They are a commercial company selling interoperability software tools with no openness. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed ODA/Intellicad 

message: The C-Class and Low-importance ratings on this article were assigned more than 4 years ago, if I am reading the history correctly.   There have been hundreds of edits since then.  The page looks pretty good to me... but I'm not a pro editor and any page can use improvement.  
If the WikiProject Computing editors could update the assessment, I would be glad to work on improving the page.  One of the members of the E-Nable group that I just added to the list of orgs is also the director of Science Online, which seems to be a group of people wildly enthusiastic about things like Open Design.  
Also, I would archive some of this talk page.  It is confusing to read 5+ year old criticisms that have been fixed, but not noted as fixed.  Marlacparker (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to update the Rating? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Open design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812185631/http://www.opencollector.org/history/OpenDesignCircuits/reinoud_announce to http://opencollector.org/history/OpenDesignCircuits/reinoud_announce
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122073324/http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html to http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122073324/http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html to http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/1012-067.pearce.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118091918/http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005359.html to http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005359.html
*Added  tag to https://www.conftool.com/iced09/index.php?page=browseSessions&form_session=44
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060303044152/http://www.designbreak.org/ to http://www.designbreak.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified