Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Perens On Problems With the Open Hardware Model (arvideonews.com)
Bruce Perens writes: At the TAPR conference this year, I did a talk on why Open Hardware licenses don't actually work, and how it would actually hurt us if they did. I'm not saying you should stop making Open Hardware, I just want to make sure you don't assume the license works better than it actually does. Also, I explain why my latest project is 100% Open Source but the hardware design is more restrictively licensed than the Open Hardware Definition would allow. The video is here. There's a long prelude of talk about Amateur Radio stuff before the Open Hardware part. But you'll probably find it interesting. Gary didn't succeed with the Kickstarter to fund recording the entire conference this year, but he made the trip and recorded it with a multi-camera shoot anyway, at significant personal expense. If you like the video, please help cover his expenses. Even $1 would help.
No one wants to sit through a video. Just summarize the issues. I'd love to hear the convuluted logic on why Open Source works, but Open Hardware doesn't. After all, information wants to be free.
Open hardware is hard mostly for economic and some legal reasons.
1) Open source works because of copyright. There is no such thing as copyright on hardware. There are patents but they are expensive and (comparatively) difficult to get. Copyright is automatic and free the moment you write something. Not so for hardware so certain types of open source licensing are off the table immediately with hardware unless someone wealthy is willing to spring for a patent and be willing to defend it.
2) Even if you intend to give away the designs, there are comparatively few people who can do anything with them. The cost of equipment needed to make/modify software is a rounding error compared with most hardware.
3) Marginal cost of production for hardware is always significant and far higher than for software. For software it is a good approximation of zero cost to make another copy. Even the simplest hardware costs substantial sums of money to produce in any quantity. This makes it far more difficult for individuals to make and modify works economically. It's somewhat like back in the day when you had to actually own an expensive printing press to publish anything. You can reduce the cost of hardware but so far we don't have any way to make it as cheap as software.
I'm sure he could find half a dozen people with the gear who would be prepared to do it for the experience.
If that were true, there would have been half a dozen other people documenting the conference for "experience", but there weren't, so you're proven wrong.
Creators/artists of any skill level should not be expected to work for free for the "experience" or "exposure" as a cost cutting measure. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/e...
Who is Bruce Perens? And why should I care what he thinks about open hardware?
Bruce Perens created the definition of Open Source and spearheaded the Open Source Initiative.
He created BusyBox which is used on pretty much all embedded linux distribution and was Debian Project Leader at some point in the 90s. He also draft the Debian Social Contract.
In other words, he is kind of a prioneer in open source and spent quite a bit of time thinking through the implications of open sourcing. Therefore, I usually consider him having opinions worth listening too when he speaks about open/close source and licenses in general.
In no case he says that having open hardware is a bad thing. He is discussing how we should approach the problem to make the community most efficient and how licensing models for hardware can achieve the properties that we want in open hardware.
The original article, and almost all of the posts following that are construing the word "Hardware" very narrowly.
* An "open CPU architecture" ...all of these are "hardware". Sure, an open CPU design is problematic because you need massive software infrastructure to maintain compilers and such. Sure, an open silicon design is almost impossible for any of us to reproduce. Sure, most of us are not going to be making custom ASICS. But we *can* all program an off-the-shelf FPGA - or have a PCB manufactured - or figure out how to assemble a 3D printer from stuff you can buy in Home Depot.
* An "open silicon design of some kind"
* An "open ASIC design"
* An "open FPGA design"
* An "open PCB design"
* An "open design for a 3D printer"
* An "open design for a modular house"
So this conversation needs to be sharply narrowed if it's going to be about the difficult stuff at the top of the list without shutting out the very successful projects at the bottom of the list.
www.sjbaker.org
Bruce Perens, the inventor of parenthesis, is now spending the fortune he made in marketing punctuation on making the world a better place for Open Source software...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
He is asking for support of the person that's recording/editing/posting the videos, "Ham Radio Now" http://arvideonews.com/
Gary, KN4AQ pays his own way and his own video equipment to put together some great videos of every segment at DCC. It's really worth it. Many people are unable to attend and this gives them the ability to view it. However this is a lot of work and it's not cheap. So a donation to Gary/ARVN offsets the cost.
The poster you're replying to, "mr_mischef", did not summarize my talk. He just wrote jibberish. The name of the poster might have been a clue :-) The slides are here.
Bruce Perens.
until they decide their patent over the modified version covers what you're doing with the unmodified version and you have to defend yourself in court.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I split two different points into two different replies. I should have made more clear this one wasn't a summary. The other one is a partial summary of it, and of the most important point in my opinion.
It shouldn't be too hard to read this one, though. I'm not sure how you're unsure of the point.
The second one is better. I found this one to be pretty far from my point. Next time I'll give the Slashdot folks a transcript.
Bruce Perens.