Why, is it important that it be seen at a glance?
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.
If font-size is a problem why not just make the logo bigger on a PCB?
the designers openess might change before release, and if it's baked onto the PCB that could be troublesome.Hmmm.
You're right. So there goes the whole idea really.
I guess it's wise not to include the logo at all if you aren't sure.
You don't have to use the logo to open your designs though.
the designers openess might change before release, and if it's baked onto the PCB that could be troublesome.Hmmm.
You're right. So there goes the whole idea really.
I guess it's wise not to include the logo at all if you aren't sure.
You don't have to use the logo to open your designs though.
Ideally a a short url under the logo (always the same) in which a user could post the status and project links and limitations. Could be a repository like thingyverse (not thingyverse). If an enterprising person or group set a url up it may well be a good way to generate revenue either for the project or the site itself.
It's up: https://maciek134.github.io/oshw-logo-gen/
Sure, for now it generates on the logo - I'll add an option to generate under the logo (and probably some styles) after work. Can someone provide an example of how it should look like (under the logo)?
And how would the openness be displayed in a consistent manner? Using the exact same system I have suggested! That's the whole point of it.
The whole point of Open Source is that it is a non-revenue model.
And how would the openness be displayed in a consistent manner? Using the exact same system I have suggested! That's the whole point of it.
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.
It's up: https://maciek134.github.io/oshw-logo-gen/
Sure, for now it generates on the logo - I'll add an option to generate under the logo (and probably some styles) after work. Can someone provide an example of how it should look like (under the logo)?
I think simply have it generate "OSHW-SPFMDBC" in the same Arial Bold font below the logo.
Non-original design files get a lower case character instead of upper case.
Remove the "Open Source Hardware" text.
Would be nice if the auto-generated text would scale in size depending upon the number of option. eg. OSHW-SC is shorter than the full string, so it could be a larger font to compensate?
Text needs to the centered of course.
Funny, people who have no clue what Open Source is about, trying to "fix" Open Source to make it not Open Source
I completely disagree with any of the percentagers or other arbitrary "I have 6 of 10 points" methods. The people that care about OSHW want the details, not percentages.
I completely disagree with any of the percentagers or other arbitrary "I have 6 of 10 points" methods. The people that care about OSHW want the details, not percentages.
I had been thinking about how to mark hardware as open source, but from a different perspective.
The point that makes an open source design useful is that you can copy it and perhaps enhance it as long as you follow the conditions of the license.
However, imagine that company A releases an open source design and you copy it. Company B buys company A and changes the license to a commercial license and also wipes Company A's website totally. It may not be trivial to be able to show you copied only the open source design or even that the open source license existed at all. As pointed out, the OS gear symbol has no absolute legal meaning as far as licenses go. Having an electronic copy of Company A's license is not much proof as anyone can make a fake license file.
If open source designers made an Open Source document package including files and licenses, made a SHA1 or SHA256 hash of the document package and then printed the hash (or part of it) on the board or case moulding, then as long as you had Company's product plus the file that matched the hash, you can prove that the file package and license you have was the one issued by Company A for the exact product you have. No-one else could make a file with changed information with the same hash.
It does mean finding space on a board or case moulding for the Hash number. A printed label is not good enough as anyone can add a label. A full SHA1 hash would be 40 Hex characters. Not sure how much you can truncate the hash to a shorter length and still have it secure. If the hash number is put on a copper layer with a very small font, it may be something you could fit on many boards.
The hash would also make it very easy to search for the OS file pack as any one storing the file would include the hash number on the website. There make be repositories that store OS files along with the hash.
Hope that makes some sense.
This hard-nosed approach is what is causing the WHOLE concept to struggle with legitimate, practical expression.
It's exactly the same as NOT allowing someone to be recognised as a valuable helper because they aren't Mother Teresa. Sainthood is no measure of value that can be reasonably applied in the greater world.
As it is, the gear logo is losing ALL credibility because there is no 'middle ground' and there are some that have at least made a legitimate effort. I'd be happier to give them credit for what they have done, rather than tell them flat out 'NO!!' just because they only scored 9.9 out of 10 (Example used for illustration purposes only. A numeric rating system is not at all useful.)
The whole idea with a number, is that it's more a general level.
Like I said before (and so far nobody replied to it), now with letters it only suits electronics, which I think is far to limited and completely useless.
With numbers/a scale you can refer to a certain level and therefore it's usable in other fields.
And I am sorry, but science is all about 'first glance'. We all try to put things in numbers that are understandable.
THD, PSSR, CMRR, max load, tolerance, the use of standard deviation, 'RMS' voltage/power, peak voltage/power are all 'first glance numbers'.
Nobody reads the whole document to understand certain conclusions, you first skim over results and numbers to see if it's usable.
That's exactly what this is about. People wanna skim OSHW projects if they are usable.
Those who make a legitimate effort should indeed be rewarded, but unless they comply with the OSHW definition it can't be with the OSHW logo. They need a completely different logo for 'enhanced documentation', they can't just steal or subvert the OSHW logo.