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.
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"! ;-)
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.
As a historical note from an old timer, in an earlier era, maybe a decade or so ago, there was extremely heavy pimping of using open source software to do biological genetic processing "bioinformatics". By 2010, we'd all be doing genetic processing in our basement as our primary hobby. It was successful enough in its field, but not widespread to the masses.
The discrimination against nuclear is from the standard proprietary software licenses forbidding use of MS products for air traffic control, medical devices, nuclear. Probably building your own homemade ATC radar or your own automatic defibrillator is a bit beyond most amateurs, but hotwiring a web interface to a geiger counter is FAR more believable. So, if you're going to pick and choose words from MS license, may as well pick that. Also nuclear is the most stereotypical dual use technology I can think of, in that it seems "obvious" that you'd want to ban 3rd world nuclear bomb development by banning "all nuclear devices" yet it seems obvious to me that a completely harmless twitter interface to a geiger counter would be kind of cool. Well, kind of, anyway.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
for most hardware of any significance
What is significant varies a lot from person to person. Building an inexpensive circuit that does something fun is significant if you find it to be so.
a provider of open source hardware has to expend significant manufacturing
Not so. If I build a single circuit to satisfy my own urges, I can still open source the schematic, pcb layout, parts footprint, etc. in a way that other people can use. They can fab it as is, or they can modify it, then fab it. Or, just look at it out of curiousity. No one says you have to manufacture your design in bulk, in the same way that you can create your own distro without having to send it to Best Buy in shrink-wrapped boxes. You can fab a prototype PCB these days for tens of dollars if you don't need it in a couple of days.
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.
You are soooo obviously not a modern electronics entrepreneur. You rent all that stuff. Yes, over the internet. Just like I don't need my own personal silk screen offset printing press I just use cafepress and competitors.
There's about a dozen board houses where you upload a PCB file, and in a couple days they mail you ready to solder PCBs. Multi layer, exotic substrates, plating, solder mask, these guys do it all. Generally PCB manufacture is completely automated, about as much slow human touch as buying a book from amazon. This is not vapor ware or a nebulous student business plan, but a pretty big business. Most PCB houses are glad to do one offs for a price, although theres obvious quantity discounts.
If you will lower yourself to talking on the phone to a salesweasel, "most" board houses either have inhouse assemblers or a "special relationship" with a local assembler. You will need to talk extensively about assembly service, and FAX custom contract back and forth. Someone could probably make a killing in the business by "semi-automating" this process much like happened to ultra-small run PCB business over the last decade. The main problem with assemblers is their "JIT" sourcing of parts and their pre-soldering inspection of parts... um... has some stereotypical problems.
There are at least half a dozen businesses where you upload a certain CAD file and in a couple days you get all manner of metal front panels, cases, and just plain ole random metalwork. Again all automated, about as difficult as uploading a picture to cafepress or uploading a "gerber" file to a PCB house. Not as popular as PCB houses, but up and coming.
There would probably be a business opportunity for someone to set up an expediting service over the internet to coordinate all these guys. But trust me, at least for open source electronics devices, if you know how to use google its pretty much ask and ye shall receive (if ye have a thick enough wallet, of course).
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
it looks like the vast majority of the "open source hardware" projects were toys with blinking lights and pointless gadgets.
First, I'd say that early computers were likely characterized by many as pointless gadgets with blinking lights.
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)
Secondly, you view this too narrowly. The idea of open source hardware goes far, far beyond the personal computer. It's about being able to develop all sorts of hardware. Things that interface to the OBD port of your car. An alarm clock that has 4 alarm times instead of 1 or 2. A way to blink your Christmas lights to the BeeGees. These are the goals of open source hardware. Oh, and yes, maybe video cards too.