Well, this explains everything.
http://www.oshwa.org/about/our-team/ (http://www.oshwa.org/about/our-team/)
Enforcement will consist of:
Bringing the alleged failure to comply to the attention of the responsible party and giving the responsible party an opportunity to respond and/or correct
A second attempt to contact the responsible party to structure a path towards compliance
Public listing of the non-compliant project or product on the OSHWA website
Monthly fines not to exceed $500 per month
Monthly fines not to exceed $1,000 per month
Monthly fines not to exceed $10,000 per month
QuoteEnforcement will consist of:
Bringing the alleged failure to comply to the attention of the responsible party and giving the responsible party an opportunity to respond and/or correct
A second attempt to contact the responsible party to structure a path towards compliance
Public listing of the non-compliant project or product on the OSHWA website
Monthly fines not to exceed $500 per month
Monthly fines not to exceed $1,000 per month
Monthly fines not to exceed $10,000 per month
I'd love to see them try and enforce those fines ;D
But I guess you have to have something token in there.
For example, if a multimeter manufacturer wanted to produce an otherwise "open hardware" multimeter, but didn't want to release say the original CAD files for the case and mouldings (which would be useless to anyone except a direct cloner), how do they do it? They can't call it "OSHW" and use the logo for a product where they have otherwise made completely open in terms of schematics, firmware, protocols etcCan't they just call the board open source hardware and say something like "OSHW inside"?
These people don't seem to understand the concept of "unintended consequences". They have bright futures as career politicians and bureaucrats.I don't get your meaning, but I've met Addie in Innsbruck. She's part of the lasersaur (http://www.lasersaur.com/) project, and an overall nice person.
For example, if a multimeter manufacturer wanted to produce an otherwise "open hardware" multimeter, but didn't want to release say the original CAD files for the case and mouldings (which would be useless to anyone except a direct cloner), how do they do it? They can't call it "OSHW" and use the logo for a product where they have otherwise made completely open in terms of schematics, firmware, protocols etcCan't they just call the board open source hardware and say something like "OSHW inside"?
This will be a new certification logo so it will have no impact on existing products with the open gear.
For example, if a multimeter manufacturer wanted to produce an otherwise "open hardware" multimeter, but didn't want to release say the original CAD files for the case and mouldings (which would be useless to anyone except a direct cloner),
You may not have heard of these new things called "3D Printers". Apparently they can take CAD files and create plastic objects, cheaply and right in your own home!
I guess what the manufacturer is looking for is the "Not Really Open License But We Want To Say It Is To Look Trendy" license.
It's clear that no one here really understands what Open Source means, deeply ironic since the forum is entitled "Open Source Hardware" :)
You may not have heard of these new things called "3D Printers". Apparently they can take CAD files and create plastic objects, cheaply and right in your own home!
To answer the question why EE's don't care about Open Source. IME most EE's are quite mercenary, and rarely like to give away anything "for free". If there is even a remote possibility of a profit to be made, they want a cut. The idea that someone else could make money off their work ("freeload") generates a brain seizure.
Strangely, software guys have less of a problem with being altruistic. It is also noticeable that software guys tend to be more left/liberal whereas hardware guys tend to be right/conservative. Lefties being more community-minded and righties driven by the profit motive.
metri,
If your project includes a novel or patentable technology or concept, then be sure to choose a license such as TAPR OHL ( https://www.tapr.org/ohl.html (https://www.tapr.org/ohl.html) ) in order to protect the novel concept from getting patented by a third party. Usually any public disclosure of something original is enough to prevent a patent by third party. However, there are hypothetical cases where a license that addresses patent issues helps to protect a open source hardware project.
cheers,
Ben
- The penalties policy sounds as a extortionist way to get money, not to promote "Open Hardware". It certainly can have a negative and destructive effect in the community.
- The penalties policy sounds as a extortionist way to get money, not to promote "Open Hardware". It certainly can have a negative and destructive effect in the community.
Dude, nobody is going to voluntarily pay fines to an organization with pretend lawful authority. I don't know to what extent trademark law would even apply here; IP (such as a logo) is typically trademarked by an individual, company or organization for that individual, company or organizations exclusive use. And in any case, even if you legitimately have IP protected under trademark law, that only gives you the power to take legal action against infringing parties, not the jurisdiction over the courts to enforce the law yourself or devise of or dictate the actual penalties. If this "association" aggressively attempted to collect their stated fines from a perceived infringer/abuser of their logo it would be my guess that they'd be treading a very fine line between simply existing in their own little fantasy world and actually violating real world criminal codes, particularly relating to fraud and extortion.
It would be quite ironic if OSHWA trademarks the logo.
It's almost cute......
This one is definitely cute, IMO. A psychologist, apparently. I'd lay on the chaise longue for her and let her examine me any day. Phwoah yeah.
The problem with the OSHW definition is that is leaves no room for companies to protect their product in arguably reasonable ways, thus probably forcing a lot of bigger companies to get scared and not open their designs up at all.I don't see the problem here.
For example, if a multimeter manufacturer wanted to produce an otherwise "open hardware" multimeter, but didn't want to release say the original CAD files for the case and mouldings (which would be useless to anyone except a direct cloner), how do they do it? They can't call it "OSHW" and use the logo for a product where they have otherwise made completely open in terms of schematics, firmware, protocols etc.
This is the position Makerbot found themselves in.
If we go back to to just the case and moldings, eg the visual aspect of a product, in my opinion it isn't part of the product itself.
Or said on a different way, you can make a very ugly case, no case, a black case or green case, the multimeter will always just work as a multimeter.
On the other hand, one could also say that about the PCB, which sometimes have a clear visual aspect as well.
So I think it would be wise to define this a little better in the OSHW definition.
In my opinion it must be something like that a designer must provide the ESSENTIALS to make a working product.
(if it's about a completely finished product like a multimeter)
The idea is IMO 180 degrees against the whole OSHW spirit.
Btw, that 'they' need to change the definition, doesn't make sense to me.
Open source is open source, which means that by definition their definition (lol, no pun) is open source as well!!
That means that I can copy their definition, change it with credits and make it open source again so other people can develop the definition further and further. That includes logos, drawings, documents and everything that is needed.
So Dave, if you like to change these aspects, there is no one who can stop you doing it, hence the definition of being and acting open source.
If you need some serious pare of hands, don't hesitate to contact me. :)Btw, that 'they' need to change the definition, doesn't make sense to me.
Open source is open source, which means that by definition their definition (lol, no pun) is open source as well!!
That means that I can copy their definition, change it with credits and make it open source again so other people can develop the definition further and further. That includes logos, drawings, documents and everything that is needed.
Of course. Anyone can do anything they want. But in the end it's about community buy-in.
it would be silly for everyone to define their own standard and way of doing things.QuoteSo Dave, if you like to change these aspects, there is no one who can stop you doing it, hence the definition of being and acting open source.
I know, and it's been way down on my to-do list.
Perhaps I'll use my down time after the knee operation to work on it and publish something.
| Number in Logo | Award | Meaning |
| 1 | Bronze | Lowest, only schematic/blue print/plan has been shared. This document contains enough to make a copy. With some more effort a second user can make his own PCB |
| 1+ | Bronze + | Same as bronze but documents are shared in an Open Source format |
| 2 | Silver | Plans/schematics are being shared and PCB files as well (GERBER + original) |
| 2+ | Silver + | Same as Silver but again all files are in Open Source format |
| 3 | Gold | Silver + mechanical plans/ideas are being shared |
| 3+ | Gold + | All documents are made in Open Source software |
| 4 | Platinium | All documents are being shared to make, build or sell a full working product |
| 5 | Diamond | Everything is shared in Open Source format (and maybe in even other formats) so everybody should be able to use it |
Good work b_force. I'm not sure that when existing "gear" sign is use that there is enough space in the middle to print "award number" using PCB silkscreen printing. But it's central position looks good.The text inside the gear logo is 1mm, which should be more than enough to print.
I didn't understand remark about Eagle. It's free version has PCB size limitation but it can be used to generate Gerbers files without limits (and that you need for manufacturing/replication). Do you think that open source project need to be designed in tools that allows second user to modify it without limitation? The same question is with mechanical modeling. Do you presume that CAD tool has to be free or open source? If yes, that we can think about another level (maybe "minus" as an opposite to suggested "plus" sign) when used development tools are not FOSS?
I'm trying to offer my current project as open as possible, actually I'd like to end it with DFM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability). Could you as an exercise take a look and let me know what number it deserve? (GutHub HW (https://github.com/eez-open/psu-hw), SW (https://github.com/eez-open/psu-firmware), home (http://www.envox.hr/eez/bench-power-supply/psu-introduction.html) page).
It's corprate suicide to open your product up fully.
A company without patent protection my not be able to justify the financial risk in the first place. Patents were created for a reason. Pharmaceutical companies try to extend patent protection by making tiny changes. Even with the possibility of patent protection pharmaceutical companies are not pursuing some areas because the economics are marginal.
I personally still believe that it is also the only way to get the best products on the market, because there are no profits involved.
A company with a patent could just freeze the whole development and sell his product forever.
So if your product uses a uController with very specific software and that software is not available, it is not open source.
Even if the rest of your idea is entirely open, the whole thing is useless if people can't use your code.