Author Topic: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!  (Read 39294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1173
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #125 on: September 14, 2016, 05:35:44 pm »

Conclusion, with the letters we are having now, there is absolutely no way I can use it at all!
So therefore it's extremely limited and in my opinion just not usable.


So what do you think of the current situation, then?


I wouldn't be too worried about the suggested letters seeming to be limited ... they offer a far finer resolution.  There just has to be an adjustment in thinking, to allocate the project aspects being represented to the appropriate category letter.
In my opinion we have to focus much wider.
I have the feel that a lot of people work and think to much from their own little island.

What frustrates me big time, is just the current position and thoughts from the 'official' OSHW community/forum/website.
Which goes in exactly the wrong direction (talking about paid memberships and a fee to get a license, sorry but than you just don't get the point at all!)

I personally also don't care about the details now. If the symbol is blue, green, transparent. Hack even an hash, letters or numbers are just minor details.
What I am trying to do is to move the discussion to a more global level, were we can make a better general idea of the whole concept, but not limited to electronics only.

Because now people will get stuck, like in my examples.

I believe if we focus more on just the definitions with examples and explanations, a good logo design will pop out by itself.
"If you can't explain it simply (or at all), you don't understand it well enough." A. Einstein

http://www.oneworldconcepts.com/ | http://www.soundprojects.com
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28107
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #126 on: September 14, 2016, 09:22:34 pm »
But just to give another example. Let's assume I am developing a bench power supply.
Including chassis, buttons, display, the whole thing.
So this project includes:
- Software (for interface, gui display, measurements)
- Electronics
- Mechanics (thermal mechanics, airflow, heatsink, fan, design chassis etc)

These 3 are already covered with the F, S, P, and M symbols. I don't see your point here.

Quote
- Esthetics (the way the GUI looks like, logos, menu structure, design of the case etc).

Aesthetics have never been covered with any license. The only way to protect the look and feel of your product is to get a Trademark and/or patents.
This is an entirely different thing to
Nobody worries about protecting aesthetics in OSHW. It's not even in the current definition nor any open hardware related licences. Well, ok, you're the first to worry about it.

Quote
First software, can be closed source or open source, and being made with open source tools or not, can have closed source plugins.
Second, electronics. Parts of the board can be shared, or completely. Can be drawn and in made in closed source or open source. BOM may be shared or not.
Third, mechanics. Maybe these files are made in Solid Works, thermal analyses is done in Mathlab or everything is done in CoCreate. BOM can be shared or not. Maybe CNC files are needed etc.

These are already covered, I really don't see your argument here.

Quote
Last, esthetics. Design can be made in open source software or something like illustrator. Design files are maybe not shared or only shared for printing/showing or what's needed for CNC.

This is essentially covered under mechanical.

Quote
Conclusion, with the letters we are having now, there is absolutely no way I can use it at all!

Yes there is, easily.

Quote
So therefore it's extremely limited and in my opinion just not usable.

Sorry, I see zero merit in your argument here  :-//

Quote
I am sorry, but for me it's just way to vague to put it all into 'CAD/Mechanical files'. A lot of things are interconnected.

And like I said before, you could go into a hundred levels and permutations if you really want to, you have to stop at some point, it's diminishing returns.
Everyone seems to understand this which is why no one else has mentioned the categories are nearly enough to cover thing, or at least make a huge improvement over the current system.
 
The following users thanked this post: Brumby

Offline klh_js

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: pl
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #127 on: September 14, 2016, 10:12:08 pm »
Hi All,
Sorry about the newbie mistake. I actually had made another forum post with my own logo generator but I would prefer to move all of that discussion to this thread. Here's a link to my take on the logo generator: https://matthewbadeau.github.io/OSHW-Logo-Autogen/

The old thread: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/oshw-logo-generator/

Remove parts of my code from oshwlogo.js or switch the license to GNU GPLv3 (the one I used).

I was a bit overwhelmed at work, I'll try to publish a new version today with text under logo option.

Which parts? I didn't use your code actually, I used parts of https://github.com/derrickpelletier/react-download-svg which is MIT licensed.
I didn't even notice that you had posted your version until the day after you were complete. I was kind of dumb and didn't actually see this thread until I had posted my generator code up  :-[

If you're seeing parts of your code in mine, which branch on github are you looking at? If it's the gh-pages branch, that code is minified and autogenerated. If it's the master branch then you'll see that I didn't copy any of your code, even the font's different.

Master branch, file
Code: [Select]
src/oshwlogo.js, lines 5-33 added in commit 88f2ba48764945b32e9568f67255bc8f07379b8, you just changed variable names. I wouldn't care because it's so small, but since you made the project a day after me, used the same idea and styling (just reversed), structured the logo code similarly and plainly copied the coords just changing names and adjusting for different font, I do. We are talking open-source here and there you are, using code without complying to the license. I made it GPL for a reason.

Updated the generator (https://maciek134.github.io/oshw-logo-gen/) with under logo option, now it uses paths so there is no problem with user not having font on their pc.
 

Offline matthewbadeau

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 7
  • Country: jp
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #128 on: September 14, 2016, 10:58:15 pm »
Hi All,
Sorry about the newbie mistake. I actually had made another forum post with my own logo generator but I would prefer to move all of that discussion to this thread. Here's a link to my take on the logo generator: https://matthewbadeau.github.io/OSHW-Logo-Autogen/

The old thread: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/oshw-logo-generator/

Remove parts of my code from oshwlogo.js or switch the license to GNU GPLv3 (the one I used).

I was a bit overwhelmed at work, I'll try to publish a new version today with text under logo option.

Which parts? I didn't use your code actually, I used parts of https://github.com/derrickpelletier/react-download-svg which is MIT licensed.
I didn't even notice that you had posted your version until the day after you were complete. I was kind of dumb and didn't actually see this thread until I had posted my generator code up  :-[

If you're seeing parts of your code in mine, which branch on github are you looking at? If it's the gh-pages branch, that code is minified and autogenerated. If it's the master branch then you'll see that I didn't copy any of your code, even the font's different.

Master branch, file
Code: [Select]
src/oshwlogo.js, lines 5-33 added in commit 88f2ba48764945b32e9568f67255bc8f07379b8, you just changed variable names. I wouldn't care because it's so small, but since you made the project a day after me, used the same idea and styling (just reversed), structured the logo code similarly and plainly copied the coords just changing names and adjusting for different font, I do. We are talking open-source here and there you are, using code without complying to the license. I made it GPL for a reason.

Come on, really? I'm trying to see what you're seeing but I can't. For one, the coords you think I copied are different. Two, We're both basically taking Dave's idea and trying to match it with code. I mean, how far away in coords can you really get? He used a bold, sans serif font. I used a bold sans serif font. You also used a bold sans serif font.

I made mine MIT because the code that 'inspired' my downloader came from an MIT licensed react library that I decided to scrap later and the React Materialize code is all MIT licensed. It even turns out that my crap attempt at a downloader is superbly under par and if there was *one* thing I would have taken from your code, you would think it would have been that, right? I mean, my code's total crap, I use a dozen libraries just to get it running. Your code is nice, neat and short. If I had seen your code to start, I would have given up because it already does everything that Dave requests, mine is all just fluff.

I promise you that I didn't copy your code, or even draw inspiration from it. I didn't even know your project existed until I posted my crappy attempt a couple of days ago. Even the materialize theme was just because I can't do front end design. The materialize theme is Apache licensed, react-materilize is MIT licensed, React is BSD-3 licensed, even the modified logo that we're working on is CC0. I'm going to stick with MIT because that's the license the software I *actually* used to create mine.

This post probably won't convince you because you're pretty set on finding *something* that I copied, I mean, you had to search through something like 20 commits to find something that looked almost similar to yours.  :-// Either way, the next thing I wanted to add was a 1bpp bmp, where I was going to modify this MIT licensed code https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29652307/canvas-unable-to-generate-bmp-image-dataurl-in-chrome but I'm pretty tired, so I'm not going to do that anymore.
 

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1173
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #129 on: September 14, 2016, 11:21:58 pm »
But just to give another example. Let's assume I am developing a bench power supply.
Including chassis, buttons, display, the whole thing.
So this project includes:
- Software (for interface, gui display, measurements)
- Electronics
- Mechanics (thermal mechanics, airflow, heatsink, fan, design chassis etc)

These 3 are already covered with the F, S, P, and M symbols. I don't see your point here.

Quote
- Esthetics (the way the GUI looks like, logos, menu structure, design of the case etc).

Aesthetics have never been covered with any license. The only way to protect the look and feel of your product is to get a Trademark and/or patents.
This is an entirely different thing to
Nobody worries about protecting aesthetics in OSHW. It's not even in the current definition nor any open hardware related licences. Well, ok, you're the first to worry about it.

Quote
First software, can be closed source or open source, and being made with open source tools or not, can have closed source plugins.
Second, electronics. Parts of the board can be shared, or completely. Can be drawn and in made in closed source or open source. BOM may be shared or not.
Third, mechanics. Maybe these files are made in Solid Works, thermal analyses is done in Mathlab or everything is done in CoCreate. BOM can be shared or not. Maybe CNC files are needed etc.

These are already covered, I really don't see your argument here.

Quote
Last, esthetics. Design can be made in open source software or something like illustrator. Design files are maybe not shared or only shared for printing/showing or what's needed for CNC.

This is essentially covered under mechanical.

Quote
Conclusion, with the letters we are having now, there is absolutely no way I can use it at all!

Yes there is, easily.

Quote
So therefore it's extremely limited and in my opinion just not usable.

Sorry, I see zero merit in your argument here  :-//

Quote
I am sorry, but for me it's just way to vague to put it all into 'CAD/Mechanical files'. A lot of things are interconnected.

And like I said before, you could go into a hundred levels and permutations if you really want to, you have to stop at some point, it's diminishing returns.
Everyone seems to understand this which is why no one else has mentioned the categories are nearly enough to cover thing, or at least make a huge improvement over the current system.
The 3 categories are only partly covered.
I still don't have an answer what to do as in my example. So when different categories don't all share the BOM for example.
Or when some categories are closed source.

I am feeling I am talking in circles. I only see people saying 'they are already covered', but nobody explains really how.
As for now they are simple not, as proven in my examples.
Start to be a little frustrating actually.

Maybe I just expect to much at ones. Let's just go back to electronics only. :-\
"If you can't explain it simply (or at all), you don't understand it well enough." A. Einstein

http://www.oneworldconcepts.com/ | http://www.soundprojects.com
 

Offline klh_js

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: pl
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #130 on: September 14, 2016, 11:28:07 pm »
Come on, really? I'm trying to see what you're seeing but I can't. For one, the coords you think I copied are different. Two, We're both basically taking Dave's idea and trying to match it with code. I mean, how far away in coords can you really get? He used a bold, sans serif font. I used a bold sans serif font. You also used a bold sans serif font.

I made mine MIT because the code that 'inspired' my downloader came from an MIT licensed react library that I decided to scrap later and the React Materialize code is all MIT licensed. It even turns out that my crap attempt at a downloader is superbly under par and if there was *one* thing I would have taken from your code, you would think it would have been that, right? I mean, my code's total crap, I use a dozen libraries just to get it running. Your code is nice, neat and short. If I had seen your code to start, I would have given up because it already does everything that Dave requests, mine is all just fluff.

I promise you that I didn't copy your code, or even draw inspiration from it. I didn't even know your project existed until I posted my crappy attempt a couple of days ago. Even the materialize theme was just because I can't do front end design. The materialize theme is Apache licensed, react-materilize is MIT licensed, React is BSD-3 licensed, even the modified logo that we're working on is CC0. I'm going to stick with MIT because that's the license the software I *actually* used to create mine.

This post probably won't convince you because you're pretty set on finding *something* that I copied, I mean, you had to search through something like 20 commits to find something that looked almost similar to yours.  :-// Either way, the next thing I wanted to add was a 1bpp bmp, where I was going to modify this MIT licensed code https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29652307/canvas-unable-to-generate-bmp-image-dataurl-in-chrome but I'm pretty tired, so I'm not going to do that anymore.

I didn't search through 20 commits, just clicked history on the file I assumed included my code. I wanted to point out that the coords are different, because you adjusted for a different font, but it doesn't matter because you convinced me it wouldn't make sense to copy something like that.

I never intended to stop you from working on your project, I'm terribly sorry if I caused that.

Side note: you can license MIT code on GPL, just not the other way around.

The 3 categories are only partly covered.
I still don't have an answer what to do as in my example. So when different categories don't all share the BOM for example.
Or when some categories are closed source.

I am feeling I am talking in circles. I only see people saying 'they are already covered', but nobody explains really how.
As for now they are simple not, as proven in my examples.
Start to be a little frustrating actually.

Maybe I just expect to much at ones. Let's just go back to electronics only. :-\

Well BOM on the logo is for electronics, I don't think it matters that much for mechanical (I may be wrong on that) - it's not like you can't work with the part if you don't know the exact kind of steel used. It shouldn't matter in which software the project was made in, sure it's nice if it's all open source software, but if a company makes the product without OSHW in mind and later decides to open it they shouldn't be penalized for using SolidWorks and Altium Designer. As for some things not being open source I can compare it to software - if I release only a part of my code I can't say the project is open source.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2016, 11:56:00 pm by klh_js »
 

Offline mux

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 119
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #131 on: September 15, 2016, 07:00:51 pm »
The 3 categories are only partly covered.
I still don't have an answer what to do as in my example. So when different categories don't all share the BOM for example.
Or when some categories are closed source.

I am feeling I am talking in circles. I only see people saying 'they are already covered', but nobody explains really how.
As for now they are simple not, as proven in my examples.
Start to be a little frustrating actually.

Maybe I just expect to much at ones. Let's just go back to electronics only. :-\

I can see what you're trying to say, but I really have to agree with Dave here; you're trying to get too much resolution into a logo that's not even meant to convey all this information in the first place. You're already talking about the minutiae while the logo just describes in very rough terms what you can expect.

Like any open source license, there are going to be very specific details that you can't fit on silkscreen. So a project page with a more elaborate explanation of your efforts to adhere to the standard is going to be compulsory, if only to actually put the design files :P

This is like the pdf vs. open source vs. closed source EDA file discussion; it's basically moot what you use. If you want to reproduce the design but the files are in the altium format you just torrent altium, generate a pdf, uninstall it and you're done*. Who cares. If you need a proprietary ICE tool for an FPGA to reproduce the board you're just not going to fucking care because 1) you're already spending hundreds on a multilayer board and FPGA tools and 2) you already have the design files, you can just recompile it for your own favourite FPGA that you already own the tools for. None of the minutiae actually matter to a designer who actually wants to built on a semi-open source hardware project. All that matters is that the design files exist in some way, somewhere. From that baseline, you can improve, but it's sufficient in nigh-on all possible situations.

* just as an example of what people are more than happy to do: the ESP8266 open source toolchain basically requires you to run a VM with all kinds of aggressively user-unfriendly bullshit, do all kinds of command line stuff, all to directly program the MIPS processor in the thing. Everybody does this, people rarely complain. If people want to do a thing, it gets done.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 07:03:58 pm by mux »
 

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1173
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #132 on: September 15, 2016, 07:37:32 pm »
if I release only a part of my code I can't say the project is open source.
That's how this whole discussion/video even started from????  :-// :palm:

I am not only talking about the silkscreen btw, just some kind of symbol/logo to see how open a certain project is.
See it as a energy label or so.

And sorry, but I don't believe it's to much to put into a logo.
I only have seen very weak arguments (or no arguments) so far.

@klh_js
I think it should be obvious that we're not talking about 'the type of steel'.
No I am talking about the mechanical structure and the components needed.
A CNC machine is a very good example for that. Without a mechanical 'schematic' it's gonna be a hell of a job the assemble the whole thing.
Same goes for some parts, and the original 3D CAD files, BOM etc
"If you can't explain it simply (or at all), you don't understand it well enough." A. Einstein

http://www.oneworldconcepts.com/ | http://www.soundprojects.com
 

Online wilfred

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 448
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #133 on: September 15, 2016, 07:44:35 pm »
If you go back and very carefully listen to what Dave is saying from @5:44 to @6:30 he is saying that it doesn't seem right that companies that want to use the logo but don't want to fully open their product to the community should be shunned by the community.

He says @2:25 that the OSHW logo "has kinda become a bit meaningless and has lost its value and that's a major problem" and @1:15 "people slap the OSHW logo on and it doesn't meet the OSHW definition"

This proposal is not trying to solve the problem of misuse of the OSHW logo by returning it to its original intent of showing that a product is actually fully open and not partly closed.

This proposal is trying to legitimise the use of the OSHW logo on not fully open (by any definition of open) products so that the scorn of the community will be eased.

So regardless of fonts colours and logos the key question is, is it justified to continue to use the OSHW logo on a merely documented but not fully open product?

So my solution to this problem of misuse of the OSHW logo is to say NO! it cannot be justified. The way to solve the problem of misuse of the OSHW logo in a non bureaucratic way is TO STOP MISUSING IT. It is the communities responsibility to continue to bring pressure to bear on companies who try to deceive people.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28107
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #134 on: September 15, 2016, 07:51:44 pm »
So regardless of fonts colours and logos the key question is, is it justified to continue to use the OSHW logo on a merely documented but not fully open product?

It doesn't matter if it's justified or not, people are using for not fully open products, probably the vast majority in fact.

Quote
So my solution to this problem of misuse of the OSHW logo is to say NO! it cannot be justified. The way to solve the problem of misuse of the OSHW logo in a non bureaucratic way is TO STOP MISUSING IT. It is the communities responsibility to continue to bring pressure to bear on companies who try to deceive people.

Not going to happen, that ha been tried and failed.
It's like the war on drugs, it's pointless and will never work, so might as well make them legal and stop putting people in jail for it.
 

Offline Chris Mr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Country: gb
  • Where there's a will there's a way
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #135 on: September 15, 2016, 08:08:26 pm »
Interesting to use the analogy of drugs.

Having considered the options on drugs, making them legal is great - unless you are living next door to someone using them who keeps you up all night, defecates in the street outside your house (or whatever, that's just a bad example to show that people can be a serious nuisance) and then says "it's legal".   Would do wonders for house prices if you live in a terraced street.

More to think about!
 

Offline klh_js

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: pl
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #136 on: September 15, 2016, 08:19:56 pm »
Interesting to use the analogy of drugs.

Having considered the options on drugs, making them legal is great - unless you are living next door to someone using them who keeps you up all night, defecates in the street outside your house (or whatever, that's just a bad example to show that people can be a serious nuisance) and then says "it's legal".   Would do wonders for house prices if you live in a terraced street.

More to think about!

You made the analogy better - if someone defecates on street or is loud during night hours it's still illegal - and from my experience with neighbors doesn't require drugs of any kind. If some company really overuses the logo, like using it to get funds and then not releasing anything we would have a problem - but this has nothing to do with the new logo, they can do that with the current one too.
 

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1173
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #137 on: September 15, 2016, 08:43:41 pm »
Softdrugs like weed is already tolerated in NL for years. Offically on paper it's still illegal.
What it means that a police officer won't arrest you if they see you using it on a way that's debateble.
(like next to a school, bothering other people with it etc)
They will ask to put it away/trough it in a bin.
If you rufuse, they have the right to fine you or arrest you.

Barely anyone uses weed here, except the tourists. So I think it does work very well, but only on a way that's been tolerated, but on paper still illegal.

I personally never understand the strict black & white views on rules and laws. It makes things only more grim and worse. There are many grey scales
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 08:45:28 pm by b_force »
"If you can't explain it simply (or at all), you don't understand it well enough." A. Einstein

http://www.oneworldconcepts.com/ | http://www.soundprojects.com
 

Online wilfred

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 448
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #138 on: September 15, 2016, 09:08:30 pm »
It doesn't seem right that the community can create something for the good of all and just because some big players come in and abuse the rights of the community to decide how they want things to be, that the community has to roll over and let it happen. It's outrageous and unfair.

At least in the case of decriminalising the lesser drugs the community gets to decide how the police and judicial resources that they also pay for will be allocated.

At some point you have to make a stand because if you give away everything you will end up with nothing. If you redefine closed as open where will you be? Just ask a door.
 

Offline Chris Mr

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Country: gb
  • Where there's a will there's a way
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #139 on: September 15, 2016, 09:25:04 pm »
Interesting to use the analogy of drugs.

Having considered the options on drugs, making them legal is great - unless you are living next door to someone using them who keeps you up all night, defecates in the street outside your house (or whatever, that's just a bad example to show that people can be a serious nuisance) and then says "it's legal".   Would do wonders for house prices if you live in a terraced street.

More to think about!

You made the analogy better - if someone defecates on street or is loud during night hours it's still illegal - and from my experience with neighbors doesn't require drugs of any kind. If some company really overuses the logo, like using it to get funds and then not releasing anything we would have a problem - but this has nothing to do with the new logo, they can do that with the current one too.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.  What I meant was that being unable to control yourself, and doing antisocial things; being prosecuted what would the judge say if the accused says "I was on xxx your honour, it's legal, and I have no control of what I do when I am on xxx that's what it does to people which is why we take it - but its legal".

I know what you mean about neighbors, but if they're sober (whatever that is) you can at least talk to them and have a reasonable chance of them remembering.

b_force makes a good point about rigidity +1  :-+

From a legal perspective, a logo is either trademarked or not.  You only have to (literally) put TM by it (and say it is your property) rather than register it, the R in a circle just means registered (which you pay for).  Without either it is in the public domain who can do whatever they like with it.  With either you can restrict use, but you have to police it which costs.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #140 on: September 16, 2016, 11:31:54 am »
Interesting to use the analogy of drugs.

Having considered the options on drugs, making them legal is great - unless you are living next door to someone using them who keeps you up all night, defecates in the street outside your house (or whatever, that's just a bad example to show that people can be a serious nuisance) and then says "it's legal".   Would do wonders for house prices if you live in a terraced street.

More to think about!

You made the analogy better - if someone defecates on street or is loud during night hours it's still illegal - and from my experience with neighbors doesn't require drugs of any kind. If some company really overuses the logo, like using it to get funds and then not releasing anything we would have a problem - but this has nothing to do with the new logo, they can do that with the current one too.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.  What I meant was that being unable to control yourself, and doing antisocial things; being prosecuted what would the judge say if the accused says "I was on xxx your honour, it's legal, and I have no control of what I do when I am on xxx that's what it does to people which is why we take it - but its legal".

That doesn't work. Think it through... Alcohol is legal, but if you get drunk and kill someone in a bar fight, you can't then turn around and say, "But I was intoxicated and not in control of my actions!" Why? Because you *chose* to drink the alcohol in the first place. You're responsible for whatever happens after that decision. If you kill someone, it's still manslaughter.

To more clearly illustrate this point, think about the following scenario: Someone with schizophrenia decides to stop taking his medication. He knows that, in the past while unmedicated, he's been violent. Despite that, he still stops taking his medication. This time, he kills someone during a psychotic episode.

Is he responsible? After all, he does suffer from schizophrenia, he can't help that, right? Well, legally, yes he is responsible because he chose to go off his meds. When he made that decision, he may not have meant for anyone to get hurt, but he should have been able to foresee the consequences based on his history, which makes it reckless disregard. (This actually happened about 20 years ago in New York.)

The More You Know! ~~~*
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #141 on: September 16, 2016, 02:39:50 pm »
Yes.  Analogies can be helpful - at best - but all too often their shortcomings become distractions ... and no matter how irrelevant, these can take over and the original point is buried.
 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #142 on: September 16, 2016, 02:48:25 pm »
Referring back to an earlier comment...

This is basically a religious debate about just what "open source" means.

It would seem there are indeed some hard line fundamentalists weighing in.


If I could borrow a relevant saying, I might be tempted to put forward the following proposition:

"They are so Heavenly minded that they are of no Earthly use."


While I completely understand the desire to "maintain the faith" - the implementation must be practical for it to be of any worth and for it to survive.  Whatever your beliefs, even religion itself has performed in this regard - and it has not been through the dogmatic insistence that you must be exactly like Jesus or Muhammad, or you should be put to death.


Yes, the OSHW concept is an ideal, but being uncompromisingly idealistic in a practical environment sets a path that leads to oblivion.

IMHO.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 03:01:48 pm by Brumby »
 

Online wilfred

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 448
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #143 on: September 16, 2016, 03:23:18 pm »
Referring back to an earlier comment...

This is basically a religious debate about just what "open source" means.

It would seem there are indeed some hard line fundamentalists weighing in.


If I could borrow a relevant saying, I might be tempted to put forward the following proposition:

"They are so Heavenly minded that they are of no Earthly use."

I've made some efforts to educate myself a bit since I said that. I still stand by it but I am now more aware of the issues surrounding the nature of OSHW. I am going with the relaxed position that hardware can be open if it can be copied and modified even with the need for commercial closed software tools. Or if you have to take a PDF and type it into a CAD package yourself that's also fine by me. If you want to do no work at all then you might just as well buy the original product because you can't be willing to do much work to add or modify the product. The fundamentalists would say everything must be open and I think there is a place for that in some cases but there will be less OSHW if that strict doctrine is inflexibly maintained. There is little point in sharing an OSHW product with Altium (or other expensive CAD package) files if it is for hobbyist markets because few hobbyists will have access to expensive tools. It is in this area that hardware differs from software. But if a hobbyist wants to take the pdf and enter it into Kicad then they can. Thereby the community has played a part in opening up the product further. I do not insist that a commercial vendor do all the work in porting designs to common open source packages. If the documentation is only available in English than some members of the community can translate it into other languages.

However, I am absolutely not going to get on board with calling OSHW open if it is not open even by the relaxed standard.  Because if it is not open I'm calling it closed.
 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #144 on: September 16, 2016, 03:31:25 pm »
You're entitled  to your opinion, of course, but I believe - as do a number of others, including Dave - that the concept of 'open source' that you support limits its potential.


Also, I find it frustrating that the ultimate "openness" you champion can be identified and accommodated within the schema presented.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 03:33:59 pm by Brumby »
 

Online wilfred

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 448
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #145 on: September 16, 2016, 04:00:44 pm »
You're entitled  to your opinion, of course, but I believe - as do a number of others, including Dave - that the concept of 'open source' that you support limits its potential.


Also, I find it frustrating that the ultimate "openness" you champion can be identified and accommodated within the schema presented.

The concept of open source that I support is only that it has to actually be open to the lowest standard. No detail necessary to copy and/or modify it must be withheld. I don't see how that limits its potential. I am only demanding that it not be closed because some critical detail is not provided.

There is nothing more limiting to the potential of open source than masquerading something not open as if it is open. That is the crux of the issue. You do not need to annotate the OSHW logo to do that. You just need to not use it.

I'm afraid I do not fully  understand your last sentence. I do think the schema presented  is attempting to relax the definition of open to incorporate "not open".
 

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1173
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #146 on: September 16, 2016, 04:07:54 pm »
We don't have to debate about the definition.
The goal is to get more people into OSHW, period.

Limiting every with strict rules is not gonna help in that. Like my example (and also what Dave said in the video)
"If you can't explain it simply (or at all), you don't understand it well enough." A. Einstein

http://www.oneworldconcepts.com/ | http://www.soundprojects.com
 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #147 on: September 16, 2016, 04:54:30 pm »
Indeed.

Mudbloods and Muggles need not apply.
 

Online wilfred

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 448
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #148 on: September 16, 2016, 06:48:31 pm »
We don't have to debate about the definition.
The goal is to get more people into OSHW, period.

Limiting every with strict rules is not gonna help in that. Like my example (and also what Dave said in the video)
Flooding the OSHW community with closed hardware will not get more people into OSHW. That is the Homeopathic option for solving the problem.

Go and relisten to the video from about 5:44 to 6:44. Dave has his view and I simply do not agree with him. I am not an OSHW zealot. I hadn't even read the definition before a few days ago, so I am hardly qualified to fight the good fight on behalf of OSHW. I do however know that open does not include closed.

Only when agreement is reached that open includes closed will this concept have a chance of solving anything. Do you agree that open should include closed? If you say yes then Dave has a solution.

 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28107
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #149 on: September 16, 2016, 07:01:05 pm »
Only when agreement is reached that open includes closed will this concept have a chance of solving anything. Do you agree that open should include closed? If you say yes then Dave has a solution.

Formal agreements do not matter, it's a fact that usage of the OSHW logo includes a majority of projects that are at least partially closed. The community has spoken and that's the result regardless of what position you hold.
This (inconvenient) fact is not open to argument, it's simply a fact.

Now, you can either do one of several thing knowing this
1) Keep screaming that OSHW should be 100% open. Ok, that's fine, but just understand that you are fighting a losing fight, history has shown this. This is what the OSHW association have effectively done, they have given up the fight and decided to start again with a trademarked logo and more rigid rules.

2) You can ignore the problem and hope it gets better or goes away.

or
3) You accept the problem and do something about it buy supporting partially open projects by encouraging changing the formal definition and implementing an idea like I have proposed.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf