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.

[Psi]

Mike explains it perfectly with..

Open Hardware != Open Source Hardware.

Open Hardware = The designer has decided to release all or part of his design files on the off chance they might be useful to others.

Open Source Hardware = The designer is following the legal OSH license and releasing everything in open formats.

[Sigmoid]

It's not about "free as in free beer" or "spoon-feeding".

Source = the machine readable code in its entirety that can be used to build the executable software / physical hardware.

I see a pdf as essentially a cop-out. "Open hardware is cool, I wanna be open hardware! Hey, I'll do a screen capture and post the pdf, that's open!"

...no, it's not. A software analogue of that would be posting the UML class diagrams in pdf. Would you call that OSS? I sure as hell wouldn't, and neither would the OSS community.

Sure, everyone's free to do as they like, but if the "open sourcing" does not realistically allow wide community buy-in and changes of the device, it's not open source at all.
Would you say that a Commodore 64 was open hardware? The circuit diagram was released on paper - the same as pdf really.

The real question is, how easy is it for the community to make the design their own. Is it significantly easier than designing the whole thing from scratch?

I think in an ideal world, if we have an open source hardware device with, say, an interference issue like the old Fluke 87V's with GSM phones, the one who found the issue could just open up the source files, add the necessary decoupling caps, create a ticket in the bugtracker, and then check the changes into git.

With a pdf, there's a significant brick wall if one wants to create a "fork", or a "patch". Actually, the only thing you can do is to "fork" the design, create your own copy from ground up.

If someone is protective of his design, or wants to use $1000 software suites, it's his prerogative. But it takes away the entire meaning and point of being open, so he might as well just call it closed (which it is in reality).

[8086]

Source = the machine readable code in its entirety that can be used to build the executable software / physical hardware.

Exercise A.

Circle the word "source" in the following sentence.

>Open hardware.

Also, isn't the source someone's brain? I mean, really. If you don't care about the silly logo and spoon  feeding rules, you can still have open hardware, and a pdf of your design is perfectly reasonable.

[microbug]

Although the title of this topic says 'open hardware', the widely-used phrase and logo is "open source hardware.

[8086]

Although the title of this topic says 'open hardware', the widely-used phrase and logo is "open source hardware.

So you're not talking about the subject of this thread? Which is open hardware.

I mean, you're interpreting it a certain way, adding more criteria.

Is a pdf really not open? Can you see an electronics design from a pdf? Yes you can.

Can you easily reproduce it? Maybe not, but how does that make it closed? It's your failing, not the designer's.

[Sigmoid]

So you're not talking about the subject of this thread? Which is open hardware.
I mean, you're interpreting it a certain way, adding more criteria.
Is a pdf really not open? Can you see an electronics design from a pdf? Yes you can.
Can you easily reproduce it? Maybe not, but how does that make it closed? It's your failing, not the designer's.

I'd argue that the only way to be truly "open" is "open source".
See my explanation above of what I mean, what the benefits of an open source project are. I'm not adding criteria, I'm arguing for a stronger dedication toward openness. "Open" is cool, and more and more people are going "open".

Yes, a circuit diagram is a good thing - but my argument is that it's nothing special. It doesn't make you "open", only "less closed". It should be standard issue for anything, like it was 30 years ago.

However, I'd like all this movement and coolness to move beyond the "cool" factor, and actually lead to a similar explosion in innovation, as open source software did. And for that, we need community-developed hardware, which is enabled only through true open sourcing.

[jadew]

I'm noticing that the crowd pretty much demands open source stuff. Free is not enough anymore!

Well, let me tell you something: You are not entitled to anything. Be glad you got whatever you got. The author has no obligation, moral or otherwise towards you and he doesn't have to respect some random definition an open source zealot farted during breakfast just because you like the sound of it.

For me, getting the schematic of a device sounds precisely as open hardware. If they decide to share something else, that's just an extra courtesy and again, you don't have any right to bitch about not getting it.


On top of this, I think people are blinded by the term and fail to see when and how it's generally being used:

1) Something that can't be easily marketed, the author doesn't care about it that much.
2) A one off or something so simple that it can be easily copied anyway, so the author gets one step ahead and brands it as open source hardware to take advantage of the buzzword.
3) The design sucks so bad or it's lacking parts (hardware or software) that it needs community support. The authors take advantage of the free contributions while enjoying the material gains by themselves.

It's just a buzzword.


I don't want to go too deep into the subject of open source, but I'm going to leave you with a URL I recently found. It's an essay which resonated with the thoughts I've been having for years. It's related to software, but I think the trend has already infected the hardware world as well (not on the same level tho):
http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/the_problems_of_open_source.htm

[mikeselectricstuff]

IMO it is quite reasonable to put a design out there with schematics, code etc., but refuse to supply PCB files.
If people want to improve it, great, put the work in and make something better, but just doing a straight copy adds nothing and is of minmal benefit to anyone but the person that makes the copy.

There is an accepted meaning for "Open source hardware", so using "Open hardware" to describe the same thing is pointless and confusing.

Seems to me that "Open Hardware" is an entirely reasonable term for something that  doesn't comply with all the "rules" of OSHW but has enough openness to be useful for producing derivatives, allowing repair and education.

[mikeselectricstuff]

... or wants to use $1000 software suites, it's his prerogative. But it takes away the entire meaning and point of being open, so he might as well just call it closed (which it is in reality).

Nonsense. Choice of tool, or cost of implementing a design has nothing to do with openness or otherwise.
An OSHW project could use a $10k fpga, or a 20 layer PCB, or need a six-axis multi-killowatt laser robot to build - this has no bearing on its openness, just its affordability, which is a completely different aspect.

[BravoV]

I thought OSHW is about the "good" intention to share, instead of fussing around on how to share it ?

I'm imagining that I'm an electronics greybeard and have a cool electronic project with a breakthrough and clever technique in designing the circuit, and also laid out the PCB such way that it will have an optimal result.

What I did everything in PDF ....

- Posted the circuit in PDF ,clearly drawn with all components values
- Provide full descriptions and explanations on the how the circuit work in the circuit's PDF
- PCB layout in PDF and provide full explanations on layout aspects, vector based and printable to 1:1 ratio.
- Embedded few photos of the working product and a clear and through explanations too.
- Sincere, willingly and open to Q&A and discussion on it.
- Put an OSHW logo almost every where in the PDF or the PCB.

Now, if I got complains or whines that I cannot use the OSHW logo, and the way PCB is laid takes lots of effort to re-create, and same to the circuit schematic at other application since I did it on proprietary applications and not willing to share the file.

My reaction to the whiners ... GET OUTTA HERE, DONT COME BACK

Now ... what say you ? Aye or Nay ? 

[Sigmoid]

I'm noticing that the crowd pretty much demands open source stuff. Free is not enough anymore!

Well, let me tell you something: You are not entitled to anything. Be glad you got whatever you got. The author has no obligation...

Now, if I got complains or whines that I cannot use the OSHW logo, and the way PCB is laid takes lots of effort to re-create, and same to the circuit schematic at other application since I did it on proprietary applications and not willing to share the file.

My reaction to the whiners ... GET OUTTA HERE, DONT COME BACK

Lol seems I stepped on some easily bruised toes there. Really what is up with this tone? Cognitive dissonance much? You know what you sound like? "Hey I don't want to throw pearls before the pigs, and the damn pigs call me names! Damn them! They aren't worth the pearls anyway!"

Funny how my actual arguments never even seem to have gotten duplicated.

Okay here's for the "whining about the whiners" crowd. Be happy with your designs. You're free to marry them, adopt them or sell them into slavery. I don't care. I care about community development and potential awesomeness. If you don't want to be part of it, then don't.

In "open", the pigs are what's called the community. 90% of the community is just users. People who whine about why the device / software doesn't do this or that, and ask stupid questions. But the other 10% are who build stuff. Cause a real community project is not done by one man, it's done by many.

Linux didn't get to where it is by finding excuses not to post the source code, and how people don't deserve it anyway.

EDIT: And I'm not against proprietary design. It's important, and I'm not saying everything should be open. I just think that people who SAY they are open, and want the social fruits and the coolness, but are in fact embracing a proprietary attitude like we've seen above ("myy preciousss, gollum!"), are kind of full of it.

ps. @jadew, it seems you hate the very idea of open anyway. So why exactly are you in a discussion about how open should work? Go and do proprietary stuff. Nobody will hate you for it, and I don't see no open source police with shotguns standing in front of your door anytime soon.

[T3sl4co1l]

Is a pdf really not open? Can you see an electronics design from a pdf? Yes you can.

Can you easily reproduce it? Maybe not, but how does that make it closed? It's your failing, not the designer's.

Reproduceability would seem to be a vacuously obvious part of "open", even if reciprocity is not offered (i.e., allowing community modifications to the source documents).

I can draw any kind of barf, but an RF circuit for instance isn't going to do a damn bit of good without at least a rough sketch of layout and shielding, let alone a proper known-working layout with mechanical drawings specifying the shields (or OTS parts).

Anyone claiming schematics as "open" is lying to themselves and making themselves a fool in front of everyone else.

A good computational analogy is providing actual source, versus object code (or libraries), or raw machine code.  Yes, it is technically possible to work with any, but you can already tell me which one you'd rather be given.

Tim

[EEVblog]

Now, if I got complains or whines that I cannot use the OSHW logo, and the way PCB is laid takes lots of effort to re-create, and same to the circuit schematic at other application since I did it on proprietary applications and not willing to share the file.
My reaction to the whiners ... GET OUTTA HERE, DONT COME BACK
Now ... what say you ? Aye or Nay ? 

If you don't meet the OSHW definition requirements of sharing the original CAD source files, then don't use the logo, simple as that.
Call it open or anythign else you want, but the using the logo means that you agree to the OSHW definition.
If you knowing use the logo and don't comply then you are just being a dick, and trying to leech off the OSHW community name and logo. That is not a good look.

[EEVblog]

IMO it is quite reasonable to put a design out there with schematics, code etc., but refuse to supply PCB files.

Of course, that's been going on for many decades in the magazine industry and is perfectly fine, nothing new there at all.

Seems to me that "Open Hardware" is an entirely reasonable term for something that  doesn't comply with all the "rules" of OSHW but has enough openness to be useful for producing derivatives, allowing repair and education.

I agree, which is why I think the OSHW (definition) community need a more identifiable name. But essentially the logo is enough.
If you meet the definition you can use the logo, if not, you don't use the logo. Both are still "open" designs.

[uwezi]

I agree, which is why I think the OSHW (definition) community need a more identifiable name. But essentially the logo is enough.
If you meet the definition you can use the logo, if not, you don't use the logo. Both are still "open" designs.

Going full circle back then to Sigmoid's first post, which started this discussion, he was actually complaining about "open hardware" not automatically following the rules of "Open Source Hardware". 

I for one have for a long time been sharing my electronics - mostly in the form of schematics, both on the net, from old BBS groups in ASCII graphics to my blog and Instructables and in scientific journals. But until 2 days ago - I must admit - I was not even aware that there existed an "Open Source Hardware" community. And I must say, I don't care. For me the source of hardware is the schematic and if necessary the general layout and the sources to the firmware. Gerber files or CAD files to me are not necessarily the source anymore and if that's what is against the rules of OSHW I will continue to share my designs as well as to ignore a certain logotype.

[LukeW]

Generally, if I want to release open hardware information for a project, I will release a PDF of the schematic and Gerber files and the CAD/CAM/EDA files.

Yes, you might only have a PDF of a schematic - but maybe the person has just drawn their schematic by hand. Or maybe there's just a schematic - there is no PCB layout for you to have.

Personally, I find it annoying if people only release their CAD/CAM files - eg. Altium or Eagle or KiCAD or whatever - and they don't release a schematic PDF. If you just want to have a quick look at the schematic you might need to stuff around finding viewer software or installing the software, which may not be available for your OS, just to have a quick look at the schematic. So in that case a PDF is good - it's easily accessible for a quick look at the schematic.

[Stonent]

IMO it is quite reasonable to put a design out there with schematics, code etc., but refuse to supply PCB files.

I would agree with that, putting PCB files out there as well is just basically a license for some guy in China to load the whole thing into a pick and place machine and start generating them by the thousands and running your small operation out of business.

[amyk]

IMO it is quite reasonable to put a design out there with schematics, code etc., but refuse to supply PCB files.

I would agree with that, putting PCB files out there as well is just basically a license for some guy in China to load the whole thing into a pick and place machine and start generating them by the thousands and running your small operation out of business.

...isn't that sort of the point of open hardware? To be replicated and mass-produced?

I believe that "open hardware" should really mean what you can (legally) do with the design,  and nothing more or less than that.

[EEVblog]

IMO it is quite reasonable to put a design out there with schematics, code etc., but refuse to supply PCB files.

I would agree with that

The accepted formal OSHW definition and other forms of opening your design are not mutually exclusive. Just don't try and pretend it's one form (by using the logo) when it's not.
It's all about what level of openness you operate at.
I think that we can all agree that not providing a schematic makes your product "closed".
Same goes for products that needs firmware. No firmware = closed.
But let's say you provide the schematic, firmware, and BOM for an electronics products. I think the majority would have to agree that this is at least somewhat "open". i.e it's not a closed design.
And therefore is "somwhat open" actually "open", well, yes, I think it is. It's not closed.
Even the most ardent formal OHSW logo wielders won't "open" everything. i.e. they usually won't provide you with their full manufacturing BOM's, with bulk pricing details, suppliers, manufacturing contacts etc.
So it's all a matter of where you draw the line.

[EEVblog]

...isn't that sort of the point of open hardware? To be replicated and mass-produced?

In theory, yes, according to the logo-wielding crowd. But in practice, I think the majority give the thumbs down to simply copying a designing for profit without adding any value to the community.
e.g. the Tangibot on Kickstarter did exactly that, and they got their arse kicked for it, even though they had every legal right to do and were operating within the rules of the game.
A lot like free speech - I'll defend your right to say anything you want, just don't expect to like it or agree with you.

The Tangibot and Arduino clones are interesting examples. You see the companies behind the products publicly saying "we support their right to do that" etc, but you can clearly read between the lines that they aren't happy when someone just copied their stuff without adding any value.

[GEuser]

Get the Engineers in they'll sort it out!

[Sigmoid]

Okay my bad, I really meant open source hardware. There's a point in being "open" as in following open standards, and
sharing knowledge, while maintaining some protection of ones' business. Thar said, if you are successful, then the lack of Gerbers won't stop the Chinese copycats from flooding eBay.

I would agree with that, putting PCB files out there as well is just basically a license for some guy in China to load the whole thing into a pick and place machine and start generating them by the thousands and running your small operation out of business.

I understand your concern. I guess if I wanted to battle the Chinese on those terms, I'd stay proprietary, and maybe release obsolete designs as a courtesy. But that isn't Open Source, or particularly open for that matter.
As for the threat of Chinese competition, I don't see Arduino being run into the ground, even though the Chinese "Arduino compatible" boards possibly outnumber real Arduinos ten to one. I do think that there's some decency left in people. If you're a dedicated Open Source designer, many will still want the convenience of having a ready-made device or a kit delivered, and people will want to support you - thus choose you over the Chinese knockoffs.

Another point is that several of the projects I've seen that followed such "protective" patterns were never an actual commercial endeavor. The web is full of makers' webshops for some "open" device, with permanent "out of stock" signs. People like that don't need the Chinese to run them into the ground, they are dead and buried anyway as an enterprise.

These "single-run of 10 units so the PCB fab is cheaper" projects would do so much better as Open Source in the community domain.

[nctnico]

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 have to be licenses and restrictions. Otherwise big companies like Apple will claim your circuit it theirs and sue you for making it public. There have been several lawsuits to force companies to acknowledge they use open source software in their products and release the source code. That is no more than fair. Actually open source has enabled a lot of opportunities for companies to make great products without having to reinvent the wheel c.q. start from scratch. Look at Android. It's basically Linux with a Java framework on top. Apple's OSX an iOS are based on FreeBSD (Linux' lesser known counterpart).

A good example of how open hardware works well is CERN. They design hardware & software and publish everything so several companies can produce their designs and use them for other purposes as well. If someone improves the hardware the changes get shared back with the 'community'. This may seem weird at first but it is a way to get very complicated work done which otherwise could only be funded by extremely big companies. I may even be working on a bit of such hardware in the near future (while getting paid). There is not much philosophical or free about it.

Here is what CERN has to say about open tools for developing hardware: http://cernandsociety.web.cern.ch/technology/kicad-development

BTW wherever you go there are people saying 'Thou shall not ...'. Just ignore those (unless they start killing people) and you'll be fine.

[zapta]

A good example of how open hardware works well is CERN. They design hardware & software and publish everything so several companies can produce their designs and use them for other purposes as well. If someone improves the hardware the changes get shared back with the 'community'. This may seem weird at first but it is a way to get very complicated work done which otherwise could only be funded by extremely big companies. I may even be working on a bit of such hardware in the near future (while getting paid). There is not much philosophical or free about it.

1. CERN is funded by tax payers money so you cannot compare it to commercial entities or individual that put their own time. Whatever they do they are paid for it.

2. Never appreciated the GPL like licenses because of the you-must-release-all-derived-works restriction, it is a form of half giving and as somebody said once, GPL is like cancer. Whenever I release software and hardware I always do it under a more liberal license like Apache 2 such that the contribution back is fully voluntary.

As for the topic at hand, a PDF is more useful for me than an Altiium source file, even if it has a big OSH logo in it (which I cannot see anyway).

[jadew]

1. CERN is funded by tax payers money so you cannot compare it to commercial entities or individual that put their own time. Whatever they do they are paid for it.

2. Never appreciated the GPL like licenses because of the you-must-release-all-derived-works restriction, it is a form of half giving and as somebody said once, GPL is like cancer. Whenever I release software and hardware I always do it under a more liberal license like Apache 2 such that the contribution back is fully voluntary.

As for the topic at hand, a PDF is more useful for me than an Altiium source file, even if it has a big OSH logo in it (which I cannot see anyway).

I fully agree with this, the GPL is the main reason why there's not enough good free software for linux. There are lots of people who would release free software but not code and can't really do it because virtually all the freaking libraries are under the GPL.

The funny thing is that 99.99% of the open source advocates can't even code while the programmers, who could make the linux world look a little better, get incommoded by GPL while they don't even care about the crappy code these licenses are protecting (yes, it's usually garbage).

[Stonent]

The Tangibot and Arduino clones are interesting examples.

Of course it's not enough for them to just make an Arduino clone, a number of companies want you to think that what they are selling is a real Arduino branded device when it is just been silkscreened with the "Made in Italy" logo.

[EEVblog]

As for the topic at hand, a PDF is more useful for me than an Altiium source file, even if it has a big OSH logo in it (which I cannot see anyway).

Unless you plan to modify it, then the original CAD source files can be handy to import.
If it has the OSH logo then it must come with the source files. But I think everyone agrees that PDF should be supplied to for ease of general viewing.

[uwezi]

But I think everyone agrees that PDF should be supplied to for ease of general viewing.

Hi Dave, I actually wanted to comment just that yesterday evening.

Completely unaware of the OSHW movement until a couple of days ago (I don't know how I could miss this...) I then came across one interesting project, but all that was supplied were KiCAD files. I am willing to try out also KiCAD - some of my students regularly ask me about software - but not now... And all I wanted to see was the schematic...

[Sigmoid]

I fully agree with this, the GPL is the main reason why there's not enough good free software for linux. There are lots of people who would release free software but not code and can't really do it because virtually all the freaking libraries are under the GPL.

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL licence, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.
Besides, there are ways to get around using a GPL library too. Just box your sensitive, proprietary code in a module, and have a generic GPLed boilerplate load it through a GPLed interface, while also linking to all the GPL libraries. This has been done in the past, and is a pretty nice solution.
This openness / non-openness narrative is generally a cop-out for emotional folks who hate a system and want a plausible-sounding reason for not supporting it.

The funny thing is that 99.99% of the open source advocates can't even code while the programmers, who could make the linux world look a little better, get incommoded by GPL while they don't even care about the crappy code these licenses are protecting (yes, it's usually garbage).

That's a pretty wild generalization there. Yes there's some garbage out there, including the Linux kernel itself in my opinion (it's a living fossil, and not in a good sense), but it has helped create some enermous value over the years.
And before you accuse me of anything, I don't particularly see GPL as something awesome, and like the less preachy licences like BSD or Apache better, and I do make my living writing proprietary code. But open source definitely has its place, and there's no point in demonizing it.

[zapta]

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL license, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.

Do you say that I can take a GPL library, modify/extend/ derive it and use in my product without having to release the source of my modified library?

I know from personal experience that companies hesitate to use code from GPL'ed software because its restrictions. Other licenses like Apache 2 are more reuse/mix/derivation friendly and are easier to get the necessary legal clearance.

GPL is like a Christmas gift with string attached from some control freak. Yak.

[NiHaoMike]

What if the schematic was drawn on paper and the first prototype breadboarded or built on prefboard? Then there are no "CAD files" apart from the PNG of the scanned schematic.

[Felicitus]

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL license, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.

Do you say that I can take a GPL library, modify/extend/ derive it and use in my product without having to release the source of my modified library?

He said that most libraries are LGPL. This is a huge difference, because you may link your closed-source software against open source libraries. Linking your product against an LGPL library is not considered a derivative.

If you modify the library itself, you need to publish your changes as required by the license.

[jadew]

That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. You have absolutely no obligation to use GPL in a software that runs on Linux. Most of the libraries of the GNU system are released under the less restrictive LGPL license, which allows you to go non-GPL on derivatives.

Do you say that I can take a GPL library, modify/extend/ derive it and use in my product without having to release the source of my modified library?

He said that most libraries are LGPL. This is a huge difference, because you may link your closed-source software against open source libraries. Linking your product against an LGPL library is not considered a derivative.

If you modify the library itself, you need to publish your changes as required by the license.

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

Edit: Things may have changed over the past few years (altho I doubt it), but I remember starting a project and then giving up on it because I quickly realized I can only release it as open source. This was at most 5 years ago.

Now something to consider when you say that X libraries are LGPL is the fact that a program is usually using lots of libraries. It's sufficient for only one of them to be GPL.

[nctnico]

GPL is like a Christmas gift with string attached from some control freak. Yak.

Not true. The only thing you need to do is make your source code available if you modify the library or link software to a piece of GPL software. There are numerous ways around that. A couple of years ago I used a camera in a Linux based product. All the camera stuff is under an NDA so the software controlling the camera could not become part of a piece of open source software. The solution was simple: I wrote a camera driver which allowed to do the camera settings from the user space application. None of the stuff under the NDA ended up in the Linux kernel and in the end it was easier to debug as well.

Actually most of the libraries are LGPL otherwise they would not be useful at all and hence get no commercial parties to pitch in some development effort.

[sync]

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

A quick check. On my Linux are 568 library RPMs installed. Only 22 are marked GPL only.

[Felicitus]

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

I have 991 packages installed which begin with "lib".  468 of those have LGPL as license. 173 of those have GPL as license. Most of the libs which are marked as "GPL" are package-specific libraries (like for LibreOffice), or have multiple licensing, or have combined licensing information (like for libcups, where they obviously copy the same licensing file across packages and then specify which license is for specific files).
 

Edit: Things may have changed over the past few years (altho I doubt it), but I remember starting a project and then giving up on it because I quickly realized I can only release it as open source. This was at most 5 years ago.

The situation was similar 5 and even 10 years ago.

[jadew]

Except they're not. Most of them are still GPL.

A quick check. On my Linux are 568 library RPMs installed. Only 22 are marked GPL only.

I can't verify that, but if that means that the other ones aren't forcing you to open source, great! maybe the linux world is going in the right direction.

However, I always seemed to bump into GPL stuff so it's hard to trust that I won't face difficulty if I plan to write something for linux. In my recollection, lots of big and useful stuff used to be GPL (Ex: Qt).

[free_electron]

What if the schematic was drawn on paper and the first prototype breadboarded or built on prefboard? Then there are no "CAD files" apart from the PNG of the scanned schematic.

PNG ? i want GIF format !

[jadew]

The situation was similar 5 and even 10 years ago.

I highly doubt that. Since I gave Qt as an example earlier, Qt used to be GPL up until recently, now it's LGPL.

And it would have fallen in your "not GPL only" filter as well, because it also had a commercial license, so it was either GPL or "pay for it". None of those versions being particularly useful for closed source free-software.

Edit: I can also remember noticing TONS of libraries I've been using as being GPL and thinking to myself: "well, this program will never be released"

[nctnico]

IMHO you are seeing problems which aren't there. I've written several pieces of software for use on Linux using open source libraries but never had to look hard for a way to be able to keep the source code closed.

[zapta]

...All the camera stuff is under an NDA so the software controlling the camera could not become part of a piece of open source software. ...

That's what I meant by 'strings attached'.   Want to be a good person? Release under a generous license license, for example Apache 2.

[NiHaoMike]

PNG ? i want GIF format !

Historically, there was a protest against GIF for being a patented format, leading to the use of PNG as a replacement. Even though that's no longer a valid reason, is there any reason to go back?
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/png-gif
W3C seems to agree that PNG offers more features and usually a slightly better compression. PDF, GIF, and TIFF are still acceptable substitutes for the purpose of distributing scanned schematics, however.

[uwezi]

W3C seems to agree that PNG offers more features and usually a slightly better compression.

PNG allows full-color images, while GIF is limited to palettes of a maximum of 256 individual colors...

[Rigby]

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.

Are you saying that when Tek and HP and all the others provided a full schematic on paper with their products, that was open, but when someone today does the same with a PDF, that's not open? 

[Rigby]

W3C seems to agree that PNG offers more features and usually a slightly better compression.

PNG allows full-color images, while GIF is limited to palettes of a maximum of 256 individual colors...

But, but animations... come on, animations. 

[uwezi]

But, but animations... come on, animations. 

Cool 

Sure, that's why GIF is still around - who wants to live without animated smileys  certainly not me 

[EEVblog]

Are you saying that when Tek and HP and all the others provided a full schematic on paper with their products, that was open, but when someone today does the same with a PDF, that's not open?

It's "open", but it couldn't use the OSHW logo.

[T3sl4co1l]

Strangely, there's an animated PNG format;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG (and also MNG)
but it's rarely supported.

A shame that animated GIFs have stuck around for so ridiculously long; there's still demand to this day for high color animations, that GIFs can approximate only very poorly with a 256 color palette.

TIm

[granz]

A bit off-topic from the open hardware vs. OSHW (definition) discussion, but I wanted to point something out.

I often find many open hardware designs amusing because of the all the specialized ICs used.  They are then branded as "completely open!"  This is especially the case as more and more chips which do everything for you become available.  I'm not saying there is no value in open designs, but let's not forget that often there are many orders of magnitude more components hidden away inside those chips.

AFIAK, no semiconductor firms are releasing the designs of their ICs.

Of course, this doesn't apply to all projects, and of course I wouldn't suggest all open projects switch to only discrete parts or anything like that.  Just a thought.

[krivx]

Unless the parts are only available under contract or at huge volumes I don't think it matters. If I can reproduce and/or modify the design then surely it's open?

[Rigby]

I'm not sure the part openness even factors in.  You can't open someone else's design, just your own.  You can fully open your design, use proprietary parts, and still be open.  It's the design that's open, not every piece in it.  Some folks will bark and make some noise saying that it isn't truly open, but those efforts are wasted unless they are directed at part manufacturers.  Also, does an open part REALLY matter if you don't have the skills and ability to design, test, and produce an improved part?  Leave that to the part manufacturers unless they get properly stupid about what they're doing.

If you're worried about the part going away or being superseded by some newer version of part that might not work, document why you chose that part, what it does, why it does it, and list things to look out for if the design must be adapted later to use a new part.  This is a hard thing to do because you don't usually have any idea about what's coming down the road, but if you're using an opamp with a particular spec, list that, and list that it's important, so that in the future when your part isn't available anymore you can communicate what is important in the selection of a new part.

Open is nice, but if I hold the design for an opamp in my hands, I will have zero clue at all about how to change it, test it, or get it manufactured in anything close to a reasonable amount of time or money. 

Use an FPGA and/or an FPAA and open the code for those if you're REALLY worried about openness.

[Felicitus]

I'm not sure the part openness even factors in.  You can't open someone else's design, just your own.  You can fully open your design, use proprietary parts, and still be open.  It's the design that's open, not every piece in it.  Some folks will bark and make some noise saying that it isn't truly open, but those efforts are wasted unless they are directed at part manufacturers.  Also, does an open part REALLY matter if you don't have the skills and ability to design, test, and produce an improved part?  Leave that to the part manufacturers unless they get properly stupid about what they're doing.

I'm mostly certain that that comment was about disclosed data sheets. This has, for example, happened on the Raspberry Pi, where people couldn't get their hands on the full datasheet for the main CPU (this isn't a 100%  accurate statement, but you get the idea). I don't know if the Raspberry Pi is an OSHW project (I haven't checked), but if it was, it would be a good example for that statement.

[Rigby]

The Raspberry Pi is not open hardware.  I don't even think the schematic is available.

[granz]

Open is nice, but if I hold the design for an opamp in my hands, I will have zero clue at all about how to change it, test it, or get it manufactured in anything close to a reasonable amount of time or money. 

There is definitely no shortage of opamp varieties in the world to choose from, I was more thinking of fancy motor drivers, RF chips, dc-dc controllers, even some microcontroller peripherals.

Use an FPGA and/or an FPAA and open the code for those if you're REALLY worried about openness.

Well, I'm not personally worried about openness or any such thing, I would be fine using specialized parts and then releasing the design as open source.  OSHW is definitely a buzzword these days, but it seems that a number of the projects are built using some proprietary ICs, some firmware, and not much else.  Often much of the heavy lifting is done by "closed" parts.  My point was more that a bit of perspective on how actually "open" it is can be valuable.

Using an FPGA or FPAA would definitely help if a goal was to really make the design as open as possible.  Actually, the fact that opencores.org exists means that this is becoming more of an option.

[Rigby]

Ah, I misunderstood a bit, as I'm wont to do.  You're right.

[mahjongg]

The Raspberry Pi is not open hardware.  I don't even think the schematic is available.

No it raspberry PI isn't open hardware, the raspberry PI foundation never intended it to be. Nevertheless, schematics (.PDF) of all three current versions can be found here:
http://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/hardware/raspberrypi/schematics.md\

[miguelvp]

You just said "pdf file" run for the hills! 

[Rigby]

You just said "pdf file" run for the hills! 

I don't get the PDF hate.  I like PDFs.  Beats the hell out of Word or Open Office, if you're interested in read-only stuff.

[miguelvp]

Wasn't about you not even about the OP, nobody is happy no matter what the format.

For example, Intel Galileo has pdf schematics and an allegro brd file for the 6 layer layout. Is it open source? well, you need to purchase allegro to generate the Gerber files, or you will have to painstakingly redo the schematic from the pdf then use your layout software to mimic what the Allegro Free Physical Viewer shows if you want to reproduce the board.

https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/documentation/galileodocuments

So even if all the data is there, people will complain that is not Open Source Hardware.

But some PCB manufacturers will take in the Allegro files but you can't modify it then, at least not easily.

But it's all disclosed so it's "Open" as in anyone can look at the layout and the schematic. But not Convenient which is what people complain about.

Just for reference, we used to get all the schematics of test equipment in printed form so we could repair it. Then manufacturers stop doing that and you had to go hunt or purchase service manuals. But still it was in print not like you could go and do your own board unless you entered the schematics and place the board the same way yourself.

But even if everything is disclosed the Allegro board doesn't have the components on it, so you will have to figure it out from the schematic and the board layout.

Is it enough? I'll say yes, other will say no.

[Rigby]

Maybe an open spec for circuit and board designs is the answer.  Not another open design tool, not even necessarily any code behind a reference implementation of a .ohw (proposed) to PDF converter or something.  For 3D models there are many "standard" formats that are supported by everyone, same for print publishing, audio work, graphics, software, and even things like plumbing and electrical work.  Does EE have any such formal/de facto standard?

I hate myself for saying that.  Open stuff is very often terrible stuff.

[EEVblog]

https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/documentation/galileodocuments
So even if all the data is there, people will complain that is not Open Source Hardware.

They can't complain. That fully meets the requirement for using the OSHW name and logo.

[Rigby]

https://communities.intel.com/community/makers/documentation/galileodocuments
So even if all the data is there, people will complain that is not Open Source Hardware.

They can't complain. That fully meets the requirement for using the OSHW name and logo.

Yeah, that's a lot of doc.  I'd love if an open source project produced this much documentation as cleanly available as this, rather than "use the source, luke" or some other GNU mating call.

[abaxas]

It's all almost incontestable marketing crap.

There you go, I said it. Even the GPL is marketing crap.

[mubes]

I think we need to go back to the philosophy behind 'open' ness as applied to open source and open xyz nowadays.  One of the significant original motivations was to prevent knowledge being locked up and unavailable for enhancement, extension and improvement....somewhat oddly, given the way they're twisted and exploited today, that was also one of the arguments behind the creation of patent law.

So, if we follow the ideas from patent law (unfashionable though that may be) then I would say that a design could qualify as 'open' if 'one skilled in the art could reproduce it without any significant further inventive step'...ok, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea. Not only that, but openness also requires that you don't get your ass sued off if you -do- reproduce the design (and, thus, gives us the argument why the availability of circuit diagrams for HP kit, undoubtedly hugely valuable, could not allow it to be construed as open; only 'well documented').

This definition allows a PDF to qualify as open source provided it gives me enough information to be able to recreate the design, but if, for example, the circuit diagram were of a microwave circuit, with very specific layout constraints, waveguide structures or similar, then it couldn't qualify as open source without Gerbers or at least detailed drawings of the relevant structures.

Open {source | hardware | law | gardening | whatever} should not be about you being able to take someone else's design and make a quick buck out of it for minimal effort, but it -should- be about you being able to stand on the shoulders of giants to be able to see a little bit further.

Regards

Dave

(Edited to remove typos....factual content unchanged)

[SirNick]

it -should- be about you being able to stand on the shoulders of giants to be able to see a little bit further.

There ya go.  That is (was?) the intention of all the open stuff.  Don't (be forced to) reinvent the wheel.  Play on each others' strengths.  A sum greater than the parts.  There's a lot of pointless bickering (in the community) about complying with the philosophy, from both lazy recipients and idealist zealots.  The rest of us just appreciate that we can learn from others, use prebuilt parts to reduce development time, peek in and see how it works, or at least have a snowball's chance of fixing or customizing some thing ourselves.

So, if you've written OSS, yakked in a blog or forum post about what you know, or published a schematic, thanks -- sincerely.  I owe you one.  And hopefully I'll have the opportunity(*) to cast some of my own work out into the community, and it'll help someone else learn or build a thing or two.  That's what open means.

* So what's stopping me?  Well, mostly that I have no intention of publishing yet another 9v battery to blinking LED converter.  If I'm going to release something, it's going to have some value.

[marshallh]

Here is my license

[SirNick]

You should mount the gear with a tamper-proof screw.