Slashdot Mirror
A Critical Look At Open Licensing For Hardware
Glyn Moody writes "At a recent Open Hardware Camp in London, it became clear that one of the main obstacles to applying open source principles to hardware was licensing. For example, should competing big companies be allowed to use their economies of scale to make and sell cheaper products based on open hardware designs developed by small start-ups without payment? There's also the problem that hacking designs for physical objects like open source cars may have safety implications, which raises questions about liability. So what's the best way to address these issues?"
In the case of cars, I fail to see why it would create any more of a liability issue than the DIY kit cars currently available. I suspect if it can pass inspection, it can be insured. For cars at least liability lies with the drivers (barring some catastrophic equipment failure, which obviously the manufacturers would be liable for).
So, I would assume that if there exists an appropriate ratings committee, standards, and inspectors to ensure safety (QA), liability would be a non-issue.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
If you wanted to build a car or whatever and sell it, whether or not it's based on an open source design it would still be required to meet the same standards.
If you want to mod your own car and make it illegal then you could do that but that would only last one year (assuming you don't get caught) until the inspection.
We do have open source hardware already, one big name being Sparc http://www.opensparc.net/ but I suspect the reason it won't ever take off in a big way has to come down to the fact it's probably harder to recoup your R&D costs if someone comes in with dirt cheap chinese labour to build an exact copy. At least with software everyone is more or less on the same terms with distribution costs on the net.