Author Topic: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!  (Read 41110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29653
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #50 on: September 09, 2016, 03:12:16 pm »
How many permutations are there to open source hardware/software? Can you capture even a fraction of that with the small possible number of permutations in a tiny logo?

Given that:
a) We had nothing before
and
b) No one has mentioned any categories I left out
I'd say the proposed solution with the 7 letters is good enough to build a decent system around.
 

Offline gcardinal

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 36
  • Country: no
  • electronics noob
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2016, 03:32:07 pm »

How about "80 Plus" ? you could just make a score from 1 to 100 - where you get points for each met criteria - this way people will know how much open source it actually is.

Edit:
Also this could be made into a generator where there is a simple QA form, after completing one you get a permalink to the form and a logo to use.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 03:36:19 pm by gcardinal »
 

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1180
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2016, 03:38:01 pm »


How about "80 Plus" ? you could just make a score from 1 to 100 - where you get points for each met criteria - this way people will know how much open source it actually is.
Dave, It's a bit confusing having two topics about the same subject.
(I think it would be also nice to refer to a few things said in that topic in your video!).

In that topic I already talked about a concept like gcardinal is talking about.
See here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/oshw/oshwa-open-source-hardware-certification-version-1/msg993439/#msg993439

I think colours etc are not going to work, because it's far to complicated to implement it in hardware (silkscreen for example).
Going from 1 to 100 doesn't make any sense. It's the same step from 1 to 10, which looks a lot cleaner.
In my example I figured out you don't need to go further than 5.
With the '+' it's easier to recognize if a program is even made in full open source software.
to my personal taste, I don't like doing anything with the teeth. It messes up the design a lot.
Doesn't look professional.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 03:45:50 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
 

Offline Tabs

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2016, 03:39:09 pm »
Using Dave's assignment of tooth attribute, but changing the symbols.
Circle = Original Source
Square = Source in PDF, JPEG ...
Triangle = ?
Empty = Attribute not opened

Not introducing colour due to silkscreen implementation

[Done in MS Paint - so needs fixing]
 

Offline Artlav

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 744
  • Country: ru
    • Orbital Designs
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2016, 03:56:49 pm »
Dave, i've heard that idea before.
Can't quite remember where.
Have you already mentioned it earlier this year somewhere?

How about something like this?


I really like that - no font size issues, and no extra confusion since you would have had to look up the letters anyway.
Hacking the universe since 2008
Having a life since 2013
 

Offline sambran

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 39
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2016, 04:23:44 pm »
I really like the idea, although I think it gets tricky when it comes to firmware. Specifically, what do you do if your source code is open but you rely on non open elements (libraries, RTOSs, compilers etc.) from third parties.

I doubt you can include any more information in the logo but it would be awesome of there was a some sort of template allowing the creators to easily detail how open the project is.   
 

Offline CaptCrash

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2016, 04:34:42 pm »
I don't really understand how this solves the problem of a commercial product having some components of its design opened up.

The decision on how open the commercial product is going to be is unlikely to be made at design time, more likely it's going to be approved for much closer to the date the product is ready for sale/marketing/announcement/release.

Making the level of open source compliance related to a logo on the hardware seems counter productive.
Eg if the logo lists 5 of 7 items as open, then at the last minute the commercial body describes to only release 4 of 7, then they are not going to scrap boards are they.

The identifier idea seems good (especially with logos underneath for internationalisation), but not on hardware silkscreen.  Much better on documentation, web sites etc

Eg use standard OSH logo on hardware as everyone is doing anyway, diffirentiate on electronic media.

This will also encourage commercials to open up more as time goes on, eg starting with 3/7 and moving to 5/7 as they become more comfortable, expand the scope of their open sourced hardware.
Perhaps the addition of qr codes on hardware to simplify finding information or some sort of identifier/web address.
 

Offline elgonzo

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #57 on: September 09, 2016, 04:50:01 pm »

How about "80 Plus" ? you could just make a score from 1 to 100 - where you get points for each met criteria - this way people will know how much open source it actually is.
Don't take it personal, but this scoring/percentage approach is not going to make things better or easier, i am afraid.  :(

Let's say, we only consider schematics (S), PCB layout (P), BOM (B) and project documentation (D) as the criteria to determine the score.
If all four are provided, then the score would be 100%.
If only 3 of 4 would be provided, it would be 75%.

So, let's go with this... Say, there is a project having a 75% logo. What exactly does this mean? Is the BOM missing, the PCB layout, or the documentation? Completely ambiguous.

Let's tighten the screws a little bit more... There are two projects with 75% each. One is lacking BOM, the other is lacking the documentation. Both having 75% suggests that they both provide an equivalent amount of information/data. But that's not the case. Clearly, the project providing the documentation is providing more valuable information (the BOM could always be derived from the schematics).
 

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1180
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #58 on: September 09, 2016, 04:51:15 pm »
It solves the problem in a sense that it's not all or nothing anymore.
Which makes a lot of sense to me.
I never get the utopian idea that everything has to be fully open.
Sometimes there are practical reasons for not doing it.

The reasons why I implemented a extra item ('+') is to make even more clear that all elements are open or not.
It's better that people share things (even if software or parts are not open) than nothing at all!

@elgonzo
You could also give a certain aspect (like BOM, schematic etc) a certain number or value.
On the other hand, if people share their original files, you already have the BOM.
What is really important, is the fact that people see if the files are made in a free or open source software program

« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 04:56:43 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
 
The following users thanked this post: gcardinal

Offline elgonzo

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2016, 04:57:03 pm »
Using Dave's assignment of tooth attribute, but changing the symbols.
Circle = Original Source
Square = Source in PDF, JPEG ...
Triangle = ?
Empty = Attribute not opened

Not introducing colour due to silkscreen implementation

[Done in MS Paint - so needs fixing]
Isn't this a teeny weeny bit too abstract and arbitrary? Who will ever memorize the meaning behind these geometric shapes?  :o
 

Offline gcardinal

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 36
  • Country: no
  • electronics noob
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2016, 05:05:47 pm »
...

I think you are jumping a gun here - its not a percentage - but a score or rating.

I really dont want to use a specific example here. But basic idea is to send the message on how much of an open hardware this exact product is.

And here I think base line could be 50 - everything necessary to recreate the project is available.
In order to get next 50 points:
things like exact source files for PCB, complete documentation, enclosure design (if such applies) make up for next 40
and last 10 are for commercial use and possibility to reproduce without alternation with the files provided. This is for projects where you could with information you have order a 100 units the next day.

Another good example is energy rating on houses.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 05:07:18 pm by gcardinal »
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2016, 05:06:47 pm »
A similar approach is used for hazardous materials. In this case it's not just binary but has a level for each category.



Having this granularity printed on the PCB is not that useful since it can change any time, e.g. by publishing schematics. A generic symbol and a reference to a website with the detailed information would be more useful.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline berwick53

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 7
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2016, 05:07:50 pm »
This video really reminded me of this!

 
The following users thanked this post: m98

Offline elgonzo

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2016, 05:14:36 pm »
You could also give a certain aspect (like BOM, schematic etc) a certain number or value.
On the other hand, if people share their original files, you already have the BOM.
The whole idea with with percentage-based scoring here is rather pointless. It is a quantitative measure, but not a suitable measure of quality, as my example illustrated. Well, we can argue about my specific example all day long, but that does not change the fact of the matter.

(EDIT: I misunderstood gcardinals post and that the suggestion he made was not about a percentage-based scoring. Please ignore my ill-informed comments with regard to that  :-[ )

However, the way you did it (as described in the forum post you linked) by using numbers as a category (not as a quantitative measure as suggested by gcardinal) makes more sense. (Although i personally very much prefer letter identifiers underneath or beside the logo, your suggestion certainly has merit.)


What is really important, is the fact that people see if the files are made in a free or open source software program
No, that's not really important with regard to OSHW logo. Low barrier to access is more important than pushing OSS (or any other particular software). Hence why it would make more sense to push for (open) standard file formats. It doesn't mean you either have to push OSS or open formats. One can do both (and probably it is necessary and the wisest thing to do), but the emphasis should be in establishing open standard formats -- similar to what PDF has become...
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 05:37:06 pm by elgonzo »
 

Offline Romain

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Country: fr
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2016, 05:25:58 pm »
Hi,
Great initiative Dave, which I find very good and very clear. That will make Open Hardware more understandable.

I do prefer the letters as well, makes it perfectly understandable.

Guys, don't forget it still doesn't mention what "license" is to be applied on the job, similarly as software (is it GNU, GPL, BSD, ...). The project's website must obviously complete all these informations.
 

Offline elgonzo

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2016, 05:28:59 pm »
I think you are jumping a gun here - its not a percentage - but a score or rating.

I really dont want to use a specific example here. But basic idea is to send the message on how much of an open hardware this exact product is.

And here I think base line could be 50 - everything necessary to recreate the project is available.
In order to get next 50 points:
things like exact source files for PCB, complete documentation, enclosure design (if such applies) make up for next 40
and last 10 are for commercial use and possibility to reproduce without alternation with the files provided. This is for projects where you could with information you have order a 100 units the next day.

Another good example is energy rating on houses.
Ahh, okay. Sorry, i misunderstood your post. Was sent on a wrong track when looking at your picture. My bad, and my apologies.

Although, i still have a difficulty to understand the meaning of such aggregate numbers without requiring a long explanation. Imo, it would be much easier and simpler (for both creators and recipients) to have simple letter identifiers denoting the content provided, or to have simple and straightforward categories (as suggested by b_force).
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 05:34:45 pm by elgonzo »
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17620
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2016, 05:30:41 pm »
This video really reminded me of this!


I agree. I didn't watch the video but the remarks give me the gist of it. On one hand there will always be the purists which to some extend keep things open but also work against progress. What you'll see is that others will come up with open hardware licenses which work in practical situations. CERN for example came up with there own OHWR license: http://www.ohwr.org/projects/cernohl/wiki just like there are several alternatives to GPL and LGPL licensing (every now and then you'll run into MIT and BSD licensed open source software).
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline b_force

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1180
  • Country: 00
    • One World Concepts
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2016, 05:39:28 pm »
You could also give a certain aspect (like BOM, schematic etc) a certain number or value.
On the other hand, if people share their original files, you already have the BOM.
The whole idea with with percentage-based scoring here is rather pointless. It is a quantitative measure, but not a suitable measure of quality, as my example illustrated. Well, we can argue about my specific example all day long, but that does not change the fact of the matter.

However, the way you did it (as described in the forum post you linked) by using numbers as a category (not as a quantitative measure as suggested by gcardinal) makes more sense. (Although i personally very much prefer letter identifiers underneath or beside the logo, your suggestion certainly has merit.)


What is really important, is the fact that people see if the files are made in a free or open source software program
No, that's not really important with regard to OSHW logo. Low barrier to access is more important than pushing OSS (or any other particular software). Hence why it would make more sense to push for (open) standard file formats. It doesn't mean you either have to push OSS or open formats. One can do both, but the emphasis should be in establishing open standard formats -- similar to what PDF has become...
I still think it makes more sense to use some sort of percentage, for the simple reason that someone can see easily how 'open' a certain project is.
For that same reason I don't like the idea of letters (in general), because it means I have to look it up and have to figure out for myself how open a project is.
Which by than becomes a subjective measure and therefore leads to more discussion and confusion.
The main reason why I don't like Daves idea at all (besides the fact that it looks very ugly to my personal taste)

But I really do understand your point that it should be very clear what a certain number means.
Therefore I suggested my idea, which is nothing more than a rough start.
Hoping that people would pick it up and we ultimately come to some sort of compromise.

The reason why I was talking about why it's important for people if a certain project is fully open (means made in open source software), has more to do with practical reasons.
For example, people who can only use open source software, can easily search and see if they can use and update certain projects.
Also for the purists, it just gives them a little bit more to be proud of.  ;) ;D

Therefore you don't need such a huge score. You're not gonna use 63 or 87 or 38 for example.
(seriously, how would you practically translate a score of 63 compared to 60?)
Full steps (or maybe half steps) are fine.
That's why I came up with the idea I posted before.
I couldn't think of anything more than what I said in the other post.
It also makes the whole logo much more clear.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 05:45:20 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
 

Offline klh_js

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: pl
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2016, 05:52:50 pm »
@up:
Creative Commons went fine with letters, nobody has to check every time what they mean.

If font-size is a problem why not just make the logo bigger on a PCB?

I updated the generator so it looks nicer now, I'm not sure how the letters under the logo should look like, so I'll try a few options and try to pick the best one. Adding an option of "score" in the middle is also pretty easy, but it would have the same problem with font size (or even worse if it was percentage).
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29653
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2016, 09:35:58 pm »
Dave, i've heard that idea before.
Can't quite remember where.
Have you already mentioned it earlier this year somewhere?

Yes, I mentioned in on the Amp Hour before.
 

Offline m98

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 329
  • Country: de
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2016, 10:04:44 pm »
So how about splitting it up into the gear logo itself that stays how it is, and then an "openness widget" showing the icons for the different levels.
The logo can then be used on PCB, housing, manuals, compliance labels, while the widget can be applied to the product packaging and other advertisement media like product websites and such.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #71 on: September 09, 2016, 11:03:16 pm »
It's not for the bloody designer. It's for the consumer. Someone with a passing interest. Anyone with a deep interest already knows what you've bloody open sourced.

Actually, it more for the desings and those technical people in the field than the consumer. Just like the consumer doesn't care about Creative Commons letter codes, similar thing here.
This system allows your peers in the field to see at a glance how open your project is, and I think that's important.

Why, is it important that it be seen at a glance? It sounds counterintuitive. If you have a keen technical interest in the detail of a design is it really a bridge too far to read the documentation and the license terms? Therein lies the difficulty I have with this proposal. It seem to want to present information at a glance to people who should be sufficiently invested to be willing to make a detailed analysis.

Exactly.

This idea is pointless. First off, it won't scale well when printed on a tiny area of PCB. Secondly, the openness might change *after* boards have been manufactured.

Perhaps what you could do is this: Keep the same gear logo, but add a URL to the bottom, like so: oshw.it/ProjectName

That would take you to a page for that specific project on the OSHW site, where the "Openess" rating would be displayed. Along with links to the schematics, artwork, firmware, the creator's website, etc.

That's easy to print on a board, is controlled by the OSHW organization and allows you easy access to what you need to know.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline VEGETA

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1100
  • Country: jo
  • I am the cult of personality
    • Thundertronics
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2016, 11:09:39 pm »
I really like putting letters under the logo. I hope the generator supports it.
 

Offline imidis

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 427
  • Country: ca
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #73 on: September 09, 2016, 11:15:18 pm »
How bout a QR code url link?
Gone for good
 

Offline klh_js

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
  • Country: pl
Re: EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!
« Reply #74 on: September 10, 2016, 12:35:26 am »
@up:
QR code would be even worse with scaling, unless the url is very short, but that would still take up at least the same space as the logo.

@2x up:
It will in the morning - I'm going to sleep right now (it's 2:35AM my time) ;p
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf