http://www.eevblog.com/2011/08/10/eevblog-195-open-source-hardware-explained/
Great explanation Dave,
The problem is that any OS hardware with commercial value will be immediately copied by the Chinese. This totally kills the show for me. I mean what prevents OSHW from becoming a free resource for tried and tested designs (wishful thinking) for the dodgy manufacturers?
The problem is that any OS hardware with commercial value will be immediately copied by the Chinese. This totally kills the show for me.
Is this a real arduino?
The stuff about file formats etc. is complete nonsense. PCB software, compilers etc. are all just tools, like a screwdriver or a soldering iron. It would be absurd to say that it wasn't Open SourceTM if it couldn't be assembled only using a free soldering iron, any similar argument about software tools is equally absurd.
A similiar thing if you look at Sparkfun's business model. They don't distribute gerbers - but they do schematics, and firmware. Distributing gerbers and design files would be of little value to anyone except those producing a knockoff. When you distribute design files you are also into the zone of 'which tool'.
There is no question that a product that includes _some_ information is better than one that provides none, however the OSHW brigade seem to take a black & white attitude that anything short of open-everything is "acceptable".
I'm just not sure any of this needs a 'label'. Why not just say.. heres the schematic, heres the code... go for it.
It is free for everyone by definition. No matter if you are a 'dodgy manufacturer' or not. Why would you want to restrict that?
It's possible to open source a design but hang on to trademarks, so Fluke to produce an open source multemeter but no one could legally produce it under the Fluke name.
You will need to continuously improve and innovate to stay competitive, even if it was not an open hardware project. Have a look at Intel's tick-tock model. If your pricing policy is to sell the product at a high margin, then the ripoffs might indeed offer a better choice. You can of course modify your margin until you spin out the next, more advanced product. That way you will always be one step ahead. But playing solely with the margin can be a trap, you could use the higher margin and direct it to marketing/support and offer a much more attractive overall product.
It would be nice if potential customers chose your product based on the community ethos, but in my opinion that is a bit of a utopia scenario. I am not talking about cheap and inferior ripoffs from Asia, but about copies of a product with the same production cost but without a high 'brand' markup cost (e.g. Fluke/Amprobe). From my experience you will have to do something else to convince potential customers to exchange the money in their pockets with your product, like create a better image for yourself or your brand and protecting that.
Open-anything is a great concept in its corner, yet it cannot grow indefinitely without interfering with the current capitalistic system, similar to project Venus. Its corner is big enough for many eg sparkfun, adafruit etc but not big enough for other eg Apple, ARM, Intel etc.
I think that some aspects of the OSHW definition are unnecessarily prescriptive, and will deter people from making stuff open-source.
For example, I think it would be entirely reasonable to release a design as firmware and schematics only, on the basis that if someone else wants to produce it, they have to add some value and do some work designing their own PCB instead of just sending your files to their PCB house and sticking it on eBay with no support..
Whether this would be called Open Hardware or something else is a different argument, but I think that providing different flavours of 'open' may encourage people to open designs who may not do otherwise.
A parallel would be Open Source software supplied as source only with no executables - the schematic is the source, the PCB is the executable.
The stuff about file formats etc. is complete nonsense. PCB software, compilers etc. are all just tools, like a screwdriver or a soldering iron. It would be absurd to say that it wasn't Open SourceTM if it couldn't be assembled only using a free soldering iron, any similar argument about software tools is equally absurd.
I must say I'm getting a little bored of the quasi-religious 'open-sourcier than thou' attitude in certain quarters.
There is no question that a product that includes _some_ information is better than one that provides none, however the OSHW brigade seem to take a black & white attitude that anything short of open-everything is "acceptable".
The problem is that any OS hardware with commercial value will be immediately copied by the Chinese.
I think that some aspects of the OSHW definition are unnecessarily prescriptive, and will deter people from making stuff open-source.
For example, I think it would be entirely reasonable to release a design as firmware and schematics only, on the basis that if someone else wants to produce it, they have to add some value and do some work designing their own PCB instead of just sending your files to their PCB house and sticking it on ebay with no support.
Whether this would be called Open Hardware or something else is a different argument, but I think that providing different flavours of 'open' may encourage people to open designs who may not do otherwise.
I just don't see the point of it all really.
If you look at Arduino - the only real thing that needs to be released is the firmware and the schematics. I see absolutely no need to release the gerbers.
A similiar thing if you look at Sparkfun's business model. They don't distribute gerbers - but they do schematics, and firmware. Distributing gerbers and design files would be of little value to anyone except those producing a knockoff. When you distribute design files you are also into the zone of 'which tool'.
The problem is that with OSHW you could sell the hardware and make a small profit out of it,or at lest cover your expenses. In this case you have to compete with a dodgy manufacturer who did not contribute anything to the design. My point is that any profit from the project should go back to the project and its contributors.
Apple claims that OpenSource Hardware infringes 17 of its patents and trademarks...
If it has commercial value, they'll copy it anyway. Just takes them a few weeks longer if it's not open source!
I think that some aspects of the OSHW definition are unnecessarily prescriptive, and will deter people from making stuff open-source.
For example, I think it would be entirely reasonable to release a design as firmware and schematics only, on the basis that if someone else wants to produce it, they have to add some value and do some work designing their own PCB instead of just sending your files to their PCB house and sticking it on ebay with no support.
Whilst that would force (not necessarily encourage) more of the "adding value" and building upon a design aspect of OSHW, which would be great in theory. It also means that they would have no base files to work from to improve it, so they have to do all the hard yards over again in creating schematic and PCB symbols etc. That defeats the whole purpose of encouraging people to build upon the existing design.
It would also mean that someone can't just reproduce the board themselves if they want to (e.g. home made). They would be forced to buy it from someone (possibly at an inflated price). Once again, that defeats the wider purpose of opening your design.
Whether this would be called Open Hardware or something else is a different argument, but I think that providing different flavours of 'open' may encourage people to open designs who may not do otherwise.I wouldn't disagree.
Perhaps there could be a version of the license that would only allow someone to use it commercially if they actually made improvements or significant modifications to the design?
The current system that allows exact duplication of a design at a lower price and wiping out "the little guy who designed it" is one of the major problems/fears of OSHW.
Even if they released their designs OS they would be still safe because of the proprietary IC's they use.
Apple claims that OpenSource Hardware infringes 17 of its patents and trademarks...
Awesome!
Who do they sue?
The lawyers will spend squillions trying to track down the addresses of the all the anonymous contributors
Dave.
*If* I want to distribute my work as CC BY-NC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ is it still permissible to add to OSHW logo to your board, or are the two exclusive?
*If* I want to distribute my work as CC BY-NC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ is it still permissible to add to OSHW logo to your board, or are the two exclusive?
No. The OSHW definition does not allow for a Non-Commercial clause in any license. Drop the NC and you can use it.
Dang, and the logo is so pretty.