Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Hardware Definition Hits 0.3
ptorrone writes "A group of open source hardware makers have put together a draft of the open source hardware definition, now at version 0.3, which hopes to further define the making, sharing and selling of hardware within an 'Open Source Hardware license.' This fall, the day before Maker Faire New York City, the group hopes to have the license finalized for v1.0, and they are holding the first Open Source Hardware Summit. There are currently dozens of companies making open source hardware, altogether worth millions of dollars."
The reason why open source software works is that it is easy for people to contribute and it is essentially free to give someone a copy. That is not the case with hardware.
Making your own dollars is a federal offense.
Isn't Apple part of this initiative? Their stuff has been jailbroken so many times and so easily, they can almost call their iPhone "Open Source Hardware"! ;-)
Wow *millions*?? OH EMM GEE!!! I can make a million dollars selling stained underwear. Big deal.
OSS definition, Section 6:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
OSHW definition, Section 7:
7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the hardware in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.
The OSHW definition is a straight copy of the OSS one with a necessary s/program/hardware/g but for some reason the example was changed to refer to nuclear research. Is there any reason behind making this kind of deliberate change, or am I reading between the lines too much?
The problem with "Open Source" hardware, and any other tangible thing, is simply that for most hardware of any significance, a person would need a factory and expensive resources handy to go about trying to make it. Granted, the barriers to ACTUALLY utilizing your rights to modify, update, and redistribute open source software are similarly insurmountable for most people,but this is even more so.
Don't get me wrong, if what this means is that design documentation (schematics, blueprints, manufacturing instructions, etc. etc. etc.) are released with the hardware (so that other companies can use it as a base) is made available, that's still great. That means that Linux will run spectacularly with "Open Source Hardware" underneath because writing the necessary drivers, etc. should be trivial, but I have a feeling adoption will be significantly lower than the open source methodology has been for software.
Underlying it all is the problem of money. Where open source software can afford (until it reaches some critical mass, at which point monetization through advertising and support tends to become a practicality) not to make any money, a provider of open source hardware has to expend significant manufacturing, R&D and Production costs, and most companies won't be willing to simply give away the fruits of all of that effort since the number of people who can contribute back will be relatively limited by comparison (contributors would need to be able to manufacture the hardware to test their modifications thoroughly). Unlike open source software, where there are many contributors, open source hardware would have comparatively few, so the cost to each contributor is much higher and the benefit of having extra eyes looking at the designs much lower. I'd like to be proven wrong, but even looking at the "success story" over at the Make blog, it looks like the vast majority of the "open source hardware" projects were toys with blinking lights and pointless gadgets. Things that might make a fun weekend project, but nothing like what OpenMoko is (was?) trying to do, or that can significantly improve our computing infrastructure and get rid of the problems caused by closed hardware (especially things like video cards, which are still giving open source OS's trouble)
Looks like it's getting a slashdotting, so here you go:
Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
Introduction
Open Source Hardware (OSHW) is a term for tangible artifacts -- machines, devices, or other physical things -- whose design has been released to the public in such a way that anyone can make, modify, distribute, and use those things. This definition is intended to help provide guidelines for the development and evaluation of licenses for Open Source Hardware.
It is important to note that hardware is different from software in that physical resources must always be committed for the creation of physical goods. Accordingly, persons or companies producing items ("products") under an OSHW license have an obligation not to imply that such products are manufactured, sold, warrantied, or otherwise sanctioned by the original designer and also not to make use of any trademarks owned by the original designer.
The distribution terms of Open Source Hardware must comply with the following criteria:
1. Documentation
The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. Where documentation is not furnished with the physical product, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining this documentation for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The documentation must include design files in the preferred form for which a hardware developer would modify the design. Deliberately obfuscated design files are not allowed. Intermediate forms analogous to compiled computer code -- such as printer-ready copper artwork from a CAD program -- are not allowed as substitutes.
2. Necessary Software
If the hardware requires software, embedded or otherwise, to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions, then the documentation requirement must also include at least one of the following: The necessary software, released under an OSI-approved open source license, or other sufficient documentation such that it could reasonably be considered straightforward to write open source software that allows the device to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original hardware. The license must allow for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files or derivatives of the design files.
4. Free redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the project documentation as a component of an aggregate distribution containing designs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. The license shall not require any royalty or fee related to the sale of derived works.
5. Attribution
The license may require derived works to provide attribution to the original designer when distributing design files, manufactured products, and/or derivatives thereof. The license may also require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original design.
6. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the hardware in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.
8. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the hardware must apply to all to whom the product or documentation is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
So you were left guessing how to optimize code or the thing because you had no idea how things are implemented, where something might be shown as a single micro-op but implemented as something that is going to churn registers on you or whatever.
is that like bear surprise ?
Most relevant and informative post so far. :)
This is open source hardware, the patents are all gone, anyone can make them. A number
of manufacturers make them to a single double edged standard.
The point is a hardware definition not making the actual hardware itself. Its defining standards
for making the hardware. Having open source definitions for hardware makes it easier for hardware manufacturers
to be compliant with the standard at cost.
Having a free open standard makes low cost vanilla hardware easy.
And if you're interested in following up on this perhaps with a community of open source hardware advocates and engineers, you might want to try something like the open manufacturing mailing list. "We bring free and open source software development methodology to the physical world."
Some of the more interesting threads have been documented here.
- Bryan
so, really, exactly what does this "Open source hardware definition" define?
Does it simply allow someone to post schematics, firmware sources, Gerber files and BOMs with the implied, "Please don't make a bunch of these and sell them as your own design," or is there more to it?
TFA doesn't talk about any sort of interoperability standards or anything else. it certainly doesn't talk about the notion of "contributing changes back to the community."
I understand all of the arguments about, "Why aren't commercial products 'maker-friendly'?" (and I know why they are not), but still .. what am I missing?
I'm hoping that someday I'll be able to reify a bitgrid. This looks like one possible path forward.
A bitgrid is just an FPGA without routing logic. It's a grid of 4bits in 4 bits out Look up tables each connected to their nearest neighbors in a 2d grid. There's no routing to worry about because any cell can be used as either logic or routing, and both at the same time in most cases.
Configuration is done by storing data in the look up tables. The whole thing looks like a chunk of static RAM to the host.
I'm willing to work with pretty much anyone to get this thing built, and having it open source would be icing on the cake.
Oh... and I strongly suspect that a BitGrid may be just the think to do Exascale computation.
duh.
Just the environmental compliance costs for your chip fab are going to be FAR greater than $50k. Just the equipment to keep the air dust-free will bust your budget - or are you going to skip the clean room?
Don't mistake the costs of ordering the equipment to program FPGAs with the cost of actually making the silicon.