RANT: A pdf circuit diagram is NOT open hardware

[Sigmoid]

I've met the umpteenth "open hardware" device on the web, whose creators deemed posting a bloody pdf with a circuit diagram enough to be "open". (And the C source code for the microcontroller firmware in Github, of course.)
I asked one where the Eagle or Kicad or gEDA files are, or maybe the Gerbers, and the reply was that "we don't want to publish those, because that's where the real intellectual property is, we worked a lot on those."

Now that's fine, but I seriously doubt these people should be calling themselves open hardware. In this spirit, HP, Agilent and pretty much the ENTIRE industry pre-1980s was "open hardware", because if you bought anything electronic, you got a circuit diagram with it.

It just ticks me off to no end. There should be something like GPL for hardware that describes what constitutes "open".

EDIT: Yes, I'm thinking "open source" rather than just "open". There IS a point of conforming to open standards, and sharing knowledge, while being closed source for one reason or another. That said, I'm convinced that most "maker" and hobbyist projects would benefit a great deal from being "open source" as well as "open".

[free_electron]

what if i make a design using Cadence Opus and publish the source files. Are you going to moan you need to spend 100K$ to get the cad software to read that file ?

In other words how far do you want to go ?

As far as i am concerned if you limit 'open source' designs to the usage of open tools like kicad or gEDA and do not allow any other software (Eagle is closed source) you ain't getting any of mine. i dont use open source tools.

[8086]

Nothing wrong with a pdf.

Open does not mean spoon feed.

The hardware design is open, you are free to redraw it in whatever eda program you choose.

[uwezi]

I have to agree with free_electron and 8086.

I would consider everything open hardware which is so well documented and open that you could easily modify the design both in hard- and firmware in order to build on it.

I don't see open hardware as a means to just take a finished design and copy the PCB and system to get an exact duplicate, because then I could probably have asked for the original product right away. I do not use open-source software because it is free, but because there often is a large base of support and the possibility to either directly or indirectly influence the product.

The opposite to open hardware to me are obfuscated circuits and circuit boards, inaccessible insides, devices with removed labels or custom-replaced labels on standard devices (hello HP and ELV) and proprietary devices which could have easily replaced with mainstream parts.

[EEVblog]

Nothing wrong with a pdf.

Yes, I'm afraid there is.
Like it or not, you can't use the term "open hardware" or "open source hardware" or the logo unless you provide the original source files (and that CAN include commercial CAD software)
It's right there in the OSH definition:

The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. Where documentation is not furnished with the physical product, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining this documentation for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The documentation must include design files in the preferred format for making changes, for example the native file format of a CAD program. Deliberately obfuscated design files are not allowed. Intermediate forms analogous to compiled computer code — such as printer-ready copper artwork from a CAD program — are not allowed as substitutes. The license may require that the design files are provided in fully-documented, open format(s).

http://www.oshwa.org/definition/

Of course that means squat legally, no one is going to pursue you for using the term incorrectly, but you risk being shunned and outed by the OSHW community.

[GK]

Of course that means squat legally, no one is going to pursue you for using the term incorrectly, but you risk being shunned and outed by the OSHW community.

So does this mob have any regulatory/legal clout whatsoever or is it just another world-changing feel good club run by a bunch of trendies?

Is there a repository or registered index of OSH anywhere? 

[c4757p]

Of course that means squat legally, no one is going to pursue you for using the term incorrectly, but you risk being shunned and outed by the OSHW community.

I doubt many people are frightened of the prospect of being "outed" as disagreeing with someone with whom they obviously disagree.

So does this mob have any regulatory/legal clout whatsoever or is it just another world-changing feel good club run by a bunch of trendies?

If they have any clout, they don't bother to say so on their website... I would guess they own the logo, which you cannot use without obeying them.

[GK]

If they have any clout, they don't bother to say so on their website... I would guess they own the logo, which you cannot use without obeying them.

Their website certainly isn’t short on pretend legalese and waffle  Now if they maintained a big, categorised and freely accessible database of OSH, I could imagine them actually being useful and having purpose. Not sure I can see a reason to become either a member or advocate so far. Should I ever feel a desire to hangout with hipsters with sideburns and purple hair, I can just go down to the local Telstra shop.

[free_electron]

Who says i have to slap the logo on it or abide by those rules. 'Open hardware' is not a trademark. If i design something and release the schematics, source and layout they can't bar me from calling it open hardware. As a convenience i provide my schematic in pdf file because very little people can read my source format. I also give you gerber data. Any cad program worth that name can read gerber , decompile it and you can take ot from there.

All those rules and regulations actually make it less open.

[EEVblog]

So does this mob have any regulatory/legal clout whatsoever or is it just another world-changing feel good club run by a bunch of trendies?

No, it's community driven and community policed.
The problem is not everyone agrees with the definition, and that's to be expected of course.
Chose to participate and follow the definition, and you can use the logo. Or chose not to and not use the logo. Or chose to start your own definition and community. Your choice.
Like it or not, the community seems to have taken "ownership" of the term "open hardware" or "open source hardware". So to avoid confusion in the industry it would be considered courtesy to not use the term unless you follow the definition.

Is there a repository or registered index of OSH anywhere?

Not really. A few lists exist like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_hardware_projects

[EEVblog]

Who says i have to slap the logo on it or abide by those rules.

No one. You can do whatever you want.

'Open hardware' is not a trademark. If i design something and release the schematics, source and layout they can't bar me from calling it open hardware.

Correct.

All those rules and regulations actually make it less open.

How does providing the original CAD files make it less open?

[TiN]

I think free_electron means that with this "requirements" some might just skip all this "open-hardware ®" crap and go closed-hardware,
just to save nerves on dealing with complains "oh, your are not open-source enough".

I'm using commercial tools as well, and not going to port my handiworks to some "open" CADs just because someone don't want to
study what I post (PDF can be opened by anyone) and spend some time doing in their favourite CAD of choice.

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere, as everybody uses what they like, and not going to switch to completely other tools
just because someone don't like CAD A or CAD B

[mikeselectricstuff]

Nothing wrong with a pdf.

Yes, I'm afraid there is.
Like it or not, you can't use the term "open hardware" or "open source hardware" or the logo unless you provide the original source files (and that CAN include commercial CAD software)

Bullshit. 
The logo, maybe, and "Open Source Hardware" has an accpeted definition, but nobody owns the phrase "Open hardware". You can use it to mean whatever you want, and lack of teh word "Source" would imply lack of some information or rights.

This over-militancy over OSHW pisses me right off, as it just discourages people from opening stuff up because of anal nit-pickers.

"Open source hardware" has an accepted meaning. I would say it's entirely reasonable and sensible to use the phrase "open hardware" to describe any hardware for which  a decent amount of information is available. Most people would understand what it means.

I find it way more annoying when an "open source" project of any flavour only publishes schematics in eagle, kicad or whatever without an easily-openable copy in a universal format like PDF, than any semantics of the licensing stuff that in practice nobody gives a crap about.

 
 

[mikeselectricstuff]

I've met the umpteenth "open hardware" device on the web, whose creators deemed posting a bloody pdf with a circuit diagram enough to be "open". (And the C source code for the microcontroller firmware in Github, of course.)

Open Hardware != Open Source Hardware.

[free_electron]

My gripe with this 'philosophical community' is that they want everything to be as free as possible. And they begin by imposing rules....
[hyperbole]
- You can only use two by four's and 2-1/2 inch nails. No screws, screwdrivers, definitely no electric ones those are the creation of a monopolistic commercial outfit .... This is counterproductive and hampers progress.

-here is a bunch of usage licences : here is our crappy, half working, design. it's completeley free. Should you spend lots of time and money to get it working you can't reap the rewards of your work. You need to tell us what you did. Oh, and anything you added to it is now also our property ('property' and 'free' are oil and water....) i'm pointing at those creative commons licences. There are waaaay too many. Only one is needed: do as you please.
[/hyperbole]

If you want to share something . Just throw it out there. Don't tack on licences and or restrictions.

There is a very old term for that purpose : 'public domain'. Share and enjoy.

[janoc]

I think free_electron means that with this "requirements" some might just skip all this "open-hardware ®" crap and go closed-hardware,
just to save nerves on dealing with complains "oh, your are not open-source enough".

I'm using commercial tools as well, and not going to port my handiworks to some "open" CADs just because someone don't want to
study what I post (PDF can be opened by anyone) and spend some time doing in their favourite CAD of choice.

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere, as everybody uses what they like, and not going to switch to completely other tools
just because someone don't like CAD A or CAD B

I think you have misunderstood the "open" part - it only requires that the design files are *published* and *modifiable*, not that they are done using open source/free tools. PDF certainly doesn't qualify as modifiable here, even though it is useful to have it for those not having access to the original tools.

The part about the files being in an open format is "may require" not "requires". So feel free to stick to your Altium or Cadence or what-have-you, there is no need to rework your stuff to Kicad only to be able to stick the OSHW logo on it.

The idea is that others could modify and re-use the design, but it is not your problem if the person wanting to do so doesn't have the tools or required skill.  You aren't obliged to change your design or to teach them how to solder because of it. Just don't deliberately make it harder - e.g. by withholding critical part of the documentation or some piece of source code or using encryption to make using modified fw impossible (Tivo ...), etc.

People will always whine that should have used gEDA, KICAD or designed it to fit in the free version of Eagle, but the OSHW doesn't require that (it would surely be appreciated, though!).

Jan

[c4757p]

I'm sure many would disagree with me, but in my opinion, a hardware design is "open" if:

- You share the "secrets" of how it is made. Schematic, layout, firmware source...
- You won't assault me with lawyers if I use that information.

That does not require you to spoonfeed me the CAD files. I might grumble about having to recapture the schematic, but I won't argue that it isn't open.

It does forbid a "non-commercial" clause.

So, service manual schematics aren't open, because if I had tried to make a clone of, say, the HP 3312A, and sell it as a competitor, their lawyers would have eaten me alive. But app note and datasheet schematics are.

[zapta]

...
I asked one where the Eagle or Kicad or gEDA files are, or maybe the Gerbers, and the reply was that "we don't want to publish those, because that's where the real intellectual property is, we worked a lot on those."
...

If the layout is indeed such a critical part of the design and if the designers keep them close I would not call it an open.   

However, if the designers release sufficient information and legal waivers such that others can freely replicate, mix, use and distribute, it is open in my book, even if it requires reasonable additional work such as reentering it into the EDA program of choice. Open is not the same as friendly, easy and convenient.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

My gripe with this 'philosophical community' is that they want everything to be as free as possible. And they begin by imposing rules....

...

If you want to share something . Just throw it out there. Don't tack on licences and or restrictions.

There is a very old term for that purpose : 'public domain'. Share and enjoy.

I'm more of a BSD-hardware guy myself

[free_electron]

I'm more of a BSD-hardware guy myself

Everyone know Real hardware is made on PDP-11 machines.

[EEVblog]

I'm using commercial tools as well, and not going to port my handiworks to some "open" CADs just because someone don't want to
study what I post (PDF can be opened by anyone) and spend some time doing in their favourite CAD of choice.

You don't have to move to any open CAD system, you just have to provide the original CAD files in the format you chose. It's not hard, just share the files and you are within the OSHW framework.

[EEVblog]

My gripe with this 'philosophical community' is that they want everything to be as free as possible. And they begin by imposing rules....

Actually, there are only two major rules:
1) There must not be a Non-Commercial clause in any license you chose
and
2) You provide the original CAD files in whatever package you used.

I think that's quite reasonable.
Others are free to not agree and not use the open hardware logo, their choice.

[EEVblog]

"Open source hardware" has an accepted meaning. I would say it's entirely reasonable and sensible to use the phrase "open hardware" to describe any hardware for which  a decent amount of information is available. Most people would understand what it means.

Yes, I agree. I was really talking about using the logo and aligning yourself with the "community" that trades under that logo.
I do think they (the community based on the OSHW definition) should pick a better and more defined (pardon the pun) name than simply Open Hardware.
It does lead to confusion and argument.

I find it way more annoying when an "open source" project of any flavour only publishes schematics in eagle, kicad or whatever without an easily-openable copy in a universal format like PDF

Agreed.

[Icchan]

The thing with all the legal stuff is to avoid legal battles. In many countries the law gives the creator intellectual property rights immediately when you create something. To make it open source, you give up some, or all those default legal rights and overwrite them with the legal text that's provided by the license you chose.

So all those rules and regulations are there to make sure everyone (even the creator) understands what permissions have been given to do or not to do with the design. It would be cumbersome to write all that legal text every time for every product, so they give you an official logo and a license that's easier to manage. But if you want to use the logo, you'll have to accept the license with that. Unless you do, you must choose a different license. I think it's quite reasonable? Otherwise everyone would call their product "open source hardware" and use the logo but have different license and that would make everything more confusing and surely lead to legal battles over things when people misunderstood it and used the commercially or otherwise.

[EEVblog]

So all those rules and regulations are there to make sure everyone (even the creator) understands what permissions have been given to do or not to do with the design. It would be cumbersome to write all that legal text every time for every product, so they give you an official logo and a license that's easier to manage. But if you want to use the logo, you'll have to accept the license with that.

No, OSHW doesn't work like that, there is no official license you must use. You are free to use any license you want, or write your own, the only requirement is that it has to meet the "definition" (those two main points I mentioned essentially) in order to use the logo.