tinsmith wrote:How will this help? In what way was its lack causing problems, and how will it remedy those problems?
How will this help? In what way was its lack causing problems, and how will it remedy those problems?
bt2 wrote:It was causing problems because the cool kids didn't like the definition of open source that some were using.
bt2 wrote:Now they can "officially" claim that any project not meeting their definition is not OSH (despite the fact that OSH existed before the cool kids came along). If you follow any of this stuff closely you'll see it's not much different than the drama on a school yard playground.
bt2 wrote:I'm jaded to the whole thing so I'm going to try to get a site together for the ROSH (Real Open Source Hardware) definition. This is much more lax, and allows things like non-commercial licensing, using closed source header and linkers files from microcontroller vendors, using closed software to develop your projects (e.g. Eagle), using closed sourced commercial parts (yes, I think it's only a matter of time before the OS ideologues start debating about whether we should only be using open source transistors fabricated in our basements).
bt2 wrote: Open source is supposed to be about sharing ideas and projects, spreading knowledge, collaboration... not guaranteeing someone else can make a profit off of another designer's work (big surprise that the large OSH distributors support that).
bt2 wrote:Just about everyone agrees that it would be wrong to steal a design and sell it without providing any compensation to the original designer, yet there is some odd desire to force this possibility upon designers in the OSH community. The "this usually doesn't happen" canned response here doesn't cut it. If it doesn't happen, why force designers to allow it to possibly happen. It's not different than saying car accidents are rare and usually don't happen, therefore you must not wear a seat-belt. The hard core OSH advocates (who are running the show) walk a strange line between freedom, where every aspect of the design (or at least every aspect currently convenient for them) must be absolutely free, and limitation, where the definition of OSH is dictated down to us and designs must be confined to within that definition. This limits a projects potential, and the last thing I want to be as an engineer and designer is limited.
bt2 wrote:If you want the freedom to design something without having to worry about which creative commons license you use, or if you want to use say, the Microchip Ethernet Stack (shock horror!) in your project, with the open source spirit of providing the design files and documentation to spread knowledge and ideas and allow other (non-evil) people to utilize your work, use the ROSH. Otherwise you may risk a message from the elite that your design is not really OSH. Real open source advocates should be promoting cool and open projects, not dictating the definition of what open source hardware, software, etc., is down upon designers.
bt2 wrote: I will change the licensing of my current projects to include commercial use because I agree with you on a practical sense and I want to be officially open source, but still feel those using an open non-commercial license should be considered open source.
bt2 wrote: I also have to apologize for my previous over the top rant which in part was due to a misunderstanding of the OSHW definition. I read the definition and found that an OSHW license "MAY" require a link between hardware and software. I previously thought it mandated it. Doing so, in my mind would be absurd. Sticking to the software analogy; imagine if you could only use Linux on an open source computer that included open source PCBs, processor, memory, regulators, etc. My design work generally involves circuit design, PCB work, and embedded software work. If my work is open, it should be considered open source, regardless if the parts I use are closed source, if some of the software files are closed source, if the tools I used are closed source, etc. I'm not claiming the transistor I use or a certain linker file I use is open source, I'm claiming my design work is.
bt2 wrote: Regarding the tools and components and such, I think many in the OSHW community are much too ideological here.
bt2 wrote:I only recently got involved in OSHW after hearing about it on Dave Jones video blog (which linked to one of your guys presentations) and on the Amp Hour (and I believe Dave took issue with the non-commercial clause as well). Before that, I was just doing commercial design professionally, which I still am, but have been generally excited about getting into OS design on the side, even if I have become a bit disillusioned with the movement. But as long as I'm free to use my preferred tools, vendor software libraries, etc., to make the best designs I can (as opposed to a sub-par ideologically perfect design), then I will adhere to the current definition, even if I don't agree with everything in it.
we don't agree with everything in it either yet - OSHW is at 1.0 of the def, we want to get to 1.1 immediately - join the forums, mailing lists and the various discussions around the web - it's a great community and everyone would love more folks to join in.
Philly wrote:Out of curiosity, if someone manufactured all your OS designs and sold them cheaper and in a quantity big enough to severely impact your business(unlikely), would you still feel the same? Would you continue?
But as long as I'm free to use my preferred tools, vendor software libraries, etc., to make the best designs I can (as opposed to a sub-par ideologically perfect design), then I will adhere to the current definition, even if I don't agree with everything in it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest