Alright, well this is what I like to propose.
Please let me know what you guys think of it.
I also like to add that it has to be usable for all kinds of fields, so not only electronics.
The idea can be used from a technical point of view, but from a visual point of view as well.
Let me come back to that a little later.
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 |
This table has been written from the perspective of an electronic engineer, but it can also being used as for woodworkers, design engineers, visual artists etc. Obviously it needs improvement to cover all of that, but I just wanted to start somewhere. There are other people out there who are better with words than I am
First, let me give a number of examples to make it clear.
I think the best example of a full Diamond award product, could be a 3D printer or CNC machine.
It clearly combines mechanical, visual and electronic parts. You need all of these documents to make a full working copy or to improve the product.
However, the concept of a (new) 3D print doesn't necessarily has to start with the electronics. People could start with the mechanics first and just later on develop additional electronics. In that case the descriptions in the table can be seen the other way around.
Another example is that a product can grow, maybe a multimeter for example.
So it starts with a prove of concept, let's say a working schematic.
From there a second person develops a PCB.
Than a third person designs a nice case and so we have a working product at the end.
This whole idea is written from the perspective of a full working end product (salable as a working product)
In my opinion that's where it is all about at the end.
The consumer needs a clear and transparent idea how a product is made.
An amplifier for example, can't be used on it's own, but it also needs a case and knobs to make it work.
In practice that means that most designs on this forum would I think end with Silver + at max, unless someone develops a nice case as well.
A Freeduino is an example of a Silver award (Eagle is not free open source and with the free version it's not possible to use it on a commercial way).
I think most (but not all!) Arduino boards are in the same category.
A Raspberry Pi doesn't get any awards (only parts of the schematics can be found).
Daves ucurrent project is a Silver award, because it's not made in open source software. (correct me if I'm wrong)
If he would spend some time in more documentation about the case, the whole product could get a Gold award.
(or even Platinum for people who like to 3D print/make the case from scratch)
The big question is, how far does someone need to go to get an certain Open Source award?
A 3D printer can be completely build from open source hardware, except the power supply.
Wall adapters are very cheap nowadays, so why why even bother right?
I guess in this case we need to look if the design of the power supply is essential to make the 3D printer work.
The 3D printer is being build to print stuff, if the power supply is open or closed, doesn't change that.
But what about the electronics for the stepper motors?
Another difficult point is how to judge products with multiple products in it.
A car for example is very complicated and contains even multiple smaller products.
It could be that not all of these products are fully open source.
My best idea is to take an average of the award numbers and round it.
On top of that, to get a + (or diamond) award, ALL documents need to be open source.
So, this is a long story and brainstorm out of my head.
I personally think it's important to make OSHW much more clear and transparent.
There are to many people and companies out there who claim to be open source.
The question is, how open are they exactly?
Oh, btw, I attached a little picture about the idea how the number is shown on a PCB for example