Conclusion, with the letters we are having now, there is absolutely no way I can use it at all!
So therefore it's extremely limited and in my opinion just not usable.
So what do you think of the current situation, then?
I wouldn't be too worried about the suggested letters seeming to be limited ... they offer a far finer resolution. There just has to be an adjustment in thinking, to allocate the project aspects being represented to the appropriate category letter.
But just to give another example. Let's assume I am developing a bench power supply.
Including chassis, buttons, display, the whole thing.
So this project includes:
- Software (for interface, gui display, measurements)
- Electronics
- Mechanics (thermal mechanics, airflow, heatsink, fan, design chassis etc)
- Esthetics (the way the GUI looks like, logos, menu structure, design of the case etc).
First software, can be closed source or open source, and being made with open source tools or not, can have closed source plugins.
Second, electronics. Parts of the board can be shared, or completely. Can be drawn and in made in closed source or open source. BOM may be shared or not.
Third, mechanics. Maybe these files are made in Solid Works, thermal analyses is done in Mathlab or everything is done in CoCreate. BOM can be shared or not. Maybe CNC files are needed etc.
Last, esthetics. Design can be made in open source software or something like illustrator. Design files are maybe not shared or only shared for printing/showing or what's needed for CNC.
Conclusion, with the letters we are having now, there is absolutely no way I can use it at all!
So therefore it's extremely limited and in my opinion just not usable.
I am sorry, but for me it's just way to vague to put it all into 'CAD/Mechanical files'. A lot of things are interconnected.
Hi All,
Sorry about the newbie mistake. I actually had made another forum post with my own logo generator but I would prefer to move all of that discussion to this thread. Here's a link to my take on the logo generator: https://matthewbadeau.github.io/OSHW-Logo-Autogen/
The old thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/oshw-logo-generator/
Remove parts of my code from oshwlogo.js or switch the license to GNU GPLv3 (the one I used).
I was a bit overwhelmed at work, I'll try to publish a new version today with text under logo option.
Which parts? I didn't use your code actually, I used parts of https://github.com/derrickpelletier/react-download-svg which is MIT licensed.
I didn't even notice that you had posted your version until the day after you were complete. I was kind of dumb and didn't actually see this thread until I had posted my generator code up
If you're seeing parts of your code in mine, which branch on github are you looking at? If it's the gh-pages branch, that code is minified and autogenerated. If it's the master branch then you'll see that I didn't copy any of your code, even the font's different.
src/oshwlogo.js
, lines 5-33 added in commit 88f2ba48764945b32e9568f67255bc8f07379b8, you just changed variable names. I wouldn't care because it's so small, but since you made the project a day after me, used the same idea and styling (just reversed), structured the logo code similarly and plainly copied the coords just changing names and adjusting for different font, I do. We are talking open-source here and there you are, using code without complying to the license. I made it GPL for a reason.Hi All,
Sorry about the newbie mistake. I actually had made another forum post with my own logo generator but I would prefer to move all of that discussion to this thread. Here's a link to my take on the logo generator: https://matthewbadeau.github.io/OSHW-Logo-Autogen/
The old thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/oshw-logo-generator/
Remove parts of my code from oshwlogo.js or switch the license to GNU GPLv3 (the one I used).
I was a bit overwhelmed at work, I'll try to publish a new version today with text under logo option.
Which parts? I didn't use your code actually, I used parts of https://github.com/derrickpelletier/react-download-svg which is MIT licensed.
I didn't even notice that you had posted your version until the day after you were complete. I was kind of dumb and didn't actually see this thread until I had posted my generator code up
If you're seeing parts of your code in mine, which branch on github are you looking at? If it's the gh-pages branch, that code is minified and autogenerated. If it's the master branch then you'll see that I didn't copy any of your code, even the font's different.
Master branch, fileCode: [Select]src/oshwlogo.js
, lines 5-33 added in commit 88f2ba48764945b32e9568f67255bc8f07379b8, you just changed variable names. I wouldn't care because it's so small, but since you made the project a day after me, used the same idea and styling (just reversed), structured the logo code similarly and plainly copied the coords just changing names and adjusting for different font, I do. We are talking open-source here and there you are, using code without complying to the license. I made it GPL for a reason.
But just to give another example. Let's assume I am developing a bench power supply.
Including chassis, buttons, display, the whole thing.
So this project includes:
- Software (for interface, gui display, measurements)
- Electronics
- Mechanics (thermal mechanics, airflow, heatsink, fan, design chassis etc)
These 3 are already covered with the F, S, P, and M symbols. I don't see your point here.Quote- Esthetics (the way the GUI looks like, logos, menu structure, design of the case etc).
Aesthetics have never been covered with any license. The only way to protect the look and feel of your product is to get a Trademark and/or patents.
This is an entirely different thing to
Nobody worries about protecting aesthetics in OSHW. It's not even in the current definition nor any open hardware related licences. Well, ok, you're the first to worry about it.QuoteFirst software, can be closed source or open source, and being made with open source tools or not, can have closed source plugins.
Second, electronics. Parts of the board can be shared, or completely. Can be drawn and in made in closed source or open source. BOM may be shared or not.
Third, mechanics. Maybe these files are made in Solid Works, thermal analyses is done in Mathlab or everything is done in CoCreate. BOM can be shared or not. Maybe CNC files are needed etc.
These are already covered, I really don't see your argument here.QuoteLast, esthetics. Design can be made in open source software or something like illustrator. Design files are maybe not shared or only shared for printing/showing or what's needed for CNC.
This is essentially covered under mechanical.QuoteConclusion, with the letters we are having now, there is absolutely no way I can use it at all!
Yes there is, easily.QuoteSo therefore it's extremely limited and in my opinion just not usable.
Sorry, I see zero merit in your argument hereQuoteI am sorry, but for me it's just way to vague to put it all into 'CAD/Mechanical files'. A lot of things are interconnected.
And like I said before, you could go into a hundred levels and permutations if you really want to, you have to stop at some point, it's diminishing returns.
Everyone seems to understand this which is why no one else has mentioned the categories are nearly enough to cover thing, or at least make a huge improvement over the current system.
Come on, really? I'm trying to see what you're seeing but I can't. For one, the coords you think I copied are different. Two, We're both basically taking Dave's idea and trying to match it with code. I mean, how far away in coords can you really get? He used a bold, sans serif font. I used a bold sans serif font. You also used a bold sans serif font.
I made mine MIT because the code that 'inspired' my downloader came from an MIT licensed react library that I decided to scrap later and the React Materialize code is all MIT licensed. It even turns out that my crap attempt at a downloader is superbly under par and if there was *one* thing I would have taken from your code, you would think it would have been that, right? I mean, my code's total crap, I use a dozen libraries just to get it running. Your code is nice, neat and short. If I had seen your code to start, I would have given up because it already does everything that Dave requests, mine is all just fluff.
I promise you that I didn't copy your code, or even draw inspiration from it. I didn't even know your project existed until I posted my crappy attempt a couple of days ago. Even the materialize theme was just because I can't do front end design. The materialize theme is Apache licensed, react-materilize is MIT licensed, React is BSD-3 licensed, even the modified logo that we're working on is CC0. I'm going to stick with MIT because that's the license the software I *actually* used to create mine.
This post probably won't convince you because you're pretty set on finding *something* that I copied, I mean, you had to search through something like 20 commits to find something that looked almost similar to yours. Either way, the next thing I wanted to add was a 1bpp bmp, where I was going to modify this MIT licensed code https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29652307/canvas-unable-to-generate-bmp-image-dataurl-in-chrome but I'm pretty tired, so I'm not going to do that anymore.
The 3 categories are only partly covered.
I still don't have an answer what to do as in my example. So when different categories don't all share the BOM for example.
Or when some categories are closed source.
I am feeling I am talking in circles. I only see people saying 'they are already covered', but nobody explains really how.
As for now they are simple not, as proven in my examples.
Start to be a little frustrating actually.
Maybe I just expect to much at ones. Let's just go back to electronics only.
The 3 categories are only partly covered.
I still don't have an answer what to do as in my example. So when different categories don't all share the BOM for example.
Or when some categories are closed source.
I am feeling I am talking in circles. I only see people saying 'they are already covered', but nobody explains really how.
As for now they are simple not, as proven in my examples.
Start to be a little frustrating actually.
Maybe I just expect to much at ones. Let's just go back to electronics only.
if I release only a part of my code I can't say the project is open source.
So regardless of fonts colours and logos the key question is, is it justified to continue to use the OSHW logo on a merely documented but not fully open product?
So my solution to this problem of misuse of the OSHW logo is to say NO! it cannot be justified. The way to solve the problem of misuse of the OSHW logo in a non bureaucratic way is TO STOP MISUSING IT. It is the communities responsibility to continue to bring pressure to bear on companies who try to deceive people.
Interesting to use the analogy of drugs.
Having considered the options on drugs, making them legal is great - unless you are living next door to someone using them who keeps you up all night, defecates in the street outside your house (or whatever, that's just a bad example to show that people can be a serious nuisance) and then says "it's legal". Would do wonders for house prices if you live in a terraced street.
More to think about!
Interesting to use the analogy of drugs.
Having considered the options on drugs, making them legal is great - unless you are living next door to someone using them who keeps you up all night, defecates in the street outside your house (or whatever, that's just a bad example to show that people can be a serious nuisance) and then says "it's legal". Would do wonders for house prices if you live in a terraced street.
More to think about!
You made the analogy better - if someone defecates on street or is loud during night hours it's still illegal - and from my experience with neighbors doesn't require drugs of any kind. If some company really overuses the logo, like using it to get funds and then not releasing anything we would have a problem - but this has nothing to do with the new logo, they can do that with the current one too.
Interesting to use the analogy of drugs.
Having considered the options on drugs, making them legal is great - unless you are living next door to someone using them who keeps you up all night, defecates in the street outside your house (or whatever, that's just a bad example to show that people can be a serious nuisance) and then says "it's legal". Would do wonders for house prices if you live in a terraced street.
More to think about!
You made the analogy better - if someone defecates on street or is loud during night hours it's still illegal - and from my experience with neighbors doesn't require drugs of any kind. If some company really overuses the logo, like using it to get funds and then not releasing anything we would have a problem - but this has nothing to do with the new logo, they can do that with the current one too.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that being unable to control yourself, and doing antisocial things; being prosecuted what would the judge say if the accused says "I was on xxx your honour, it's legal, and I have no control of what I do when I am on xxx that's what it does to people which is why we take it - but its legal".
This is basically a religious debate about just what "open source" means.
Referring back to an earlier comment...This is basically a religious debate about just what "open source" means.
It would seem there are indeed some hard line fundamentalists weighing in.
If I could borrow a relevant saying, I might be tempted to put forward the following proposition:
"They are so Heavenly minded that they are of no Earthly use."
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I believe - as do a number of others, including Dave - that the concept of 'open source' that you support limits its potential.
Also, I find it frustrating that the ultimate "openness" you champion can be identified and accommodated within the schema presented.
We don't have to debate about the definition.
The goal is to get more people into OSHW, period.
Limiting every with strict rules is not gonna help in that. Like my example (and also what Dave said in the video)
Only when agreement is reached that open includes closed will this concept have a chance of solving anything. Do you agree that open should include closed? If you say yes then Dave has a solution.