6 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. zoobab
    Sep 29, 2016 @ 10:38:52

    They should have replaced the name “Open Hardware” with “Open Schematics” long time ago. The term is misleading, as having a board with a big black chip in the middle, where there are no fucking documentation on how it works is what I call a blackbox, not open hardware.

    And saying “schematic CAD file is open” means it is public domain? copyrighted? copyright with a license of use? gpl? creative commons?


    • OLIMEX Ltd
      Sep 29, 2016 @ 11:42:45

      open schematic is not correct for sure, the project designer has nothing to open with the components used, as they are not his product. Isn’t one TTL IC also black box? What do you know about the internal structure of it? Aren’t there back doors i.e. when you apply some voltage to some combination of pins you get unexpected result? Dave’s idea is great as allow anyone to open as much as he is capable or willing and still to contribute to open source.


  2. Anool Mahidharia
    Sep 29, 2016 @ 12:39:10

    For cramped spaces, I suggest using a Fuel Gauge style logo that goes from Empty (outline) to Full (solid) in 7 steps. If the logo is solid, everything is Open. Then, depending on how empty it gets, indicates lower amounts of “openness”.


  3. Trackback: Great idea about Open Source Hardware projects marking | The Frogs blog
  4. reinermschmidt
    Sep 30, 2016 @ 05:52:28

    Cool idea! Definatley a clever fix for a bug problem.

    But the silk resolution might make it kinda trick to fit those letter in there. I’ll try it out on a SlushEngine prototype and post results.


  5. pboddie
    Sep 30, 2016 @ 18:36:54

    Sounds like an overcomplicated re-spin of Creative Commons licensing. (It’s tiresome that hardware people make so much out of hardware being “different” from everything else that they then feel the need to replay all the different deliberations and mistakes from decades of software and content licensing experience – and in slow motion, too – all instead of embracing the knowledge gained from such experience.)

    Whether hardware is “open” depends on who you are. If you’re a software person, you want the hardware to be documented and supportable by Free Software, including at the firmware level. If you are a board designer, you want the schematics and bill of materials, maybe also the CAD files. If you do things with FPGAs, maybe you demand that the functionality of every component be described to facilitate synthesis.

    And, of course, all file formats involved must be non-proprietary, all materials must be distributable under recognised free content licences, and so on. I would imagine that a lot of supposedly open hardware projects fail on this point, but it should be non-negotiable.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: