Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should An Open Source Hardware Project Support Clones?
Long-time Slashdot reader Ichijo
has a question about "(not quite) open source hardware":
One hardware project that calls itself "open source" doesn't want to make its hardware design source files publicly available because doing so would, in their words, "make it very trivial for e.g Chinese companies to start producing cheap clones... we'd be getting support requests for hardware we had no idea of the quality of." This answer was in response to a request by a user who wants to use the design in his own projects.
Have any other open source hardware projects run into support issues from people owning cheap "clones"? Have clones been produced even without the hardware design source files?
Leave your answers in the comments. Should an open source hardware project support clones?
Have any other open source hardware projects run into support issues from people owning cheap "clones"? Have clones been produced even without the hardware design source files?
Leave your answers in the comments. Should an open source hardware project support clones?
I don't think this is a new problems... can't we apply old solutions?
Considering you can send chips to China now and they'll offer complete reverse engineering/duplication services. I don't see them keeping the schematic to themselves as being a real solution to stopping the Chinese from knocking off their hardware.
That said, no, open source hardware projects have no obligation to support anybody, let alone clone makers, but it's not open source if the source isn't open. Meaning they shouldn't actively block clone makers.
There were clones 10 years ago already.
You can support the design of your open source hardware project. Actively doing this keeps the community cohesive and on point. When it comes to supporting the implementation, If you built it, and you sell it, then you support it. If someone else builds it and sells it then they can support it. If the potential customer buys from someone else and asks for your support because the low cost outfit they bought it from cannot help them, then, charge like wounded bulls, be very suspicious of what your are working with, point out all the problems you so conscientiously find and help out as much as you can. This will offset your costs, make you look good, encourage the customer to buy from you in future and make your low cost competitor look incompetent.
Open source is poverty except for a handful few. RedHat makes the cash and has the full-time developers to make a difference. The other distributions, even the famous ones, can only follow their lead when something is too big.
It's not open source if it doesn't come with the complete source that someone else can "compile" into hardware. It's not open source if it comes with a "look but don't touch" license. They're under no obligation to support them. They can trademark their name/logo to protect the brand and their own sales. But they can't stop them. If that doesn't work for them, maybe open source is the wrong business model.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Surely if it's Open Source it will largely be supported by the community which means that if you want to buy cheap Chinese knockoffs you can expect to be supported by cheap Chinese knockoffs.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I've used hardware from several open source, and not really open source, hardware projects that have attracted a lot of clones. The biggest problem is that the clones are often not exactly the same as the official versions. Clone can have higher version numbers to mislead consumers into believing they are better than others. Even something as simple as different connectors catch people out.
Over time it can become a confusing mess for everyone involved, making support of every clone impractical. If you want to offer some help to clone buyers, limiting that support to a list of approved clones, that meet minimum requirements, is a way of avoiding insanity.
There is a project developed mostly by German classical electronics enthusiasts (they do not use the openHardware et al. buzzwords but in fact software as well as hardware files are freely available) developing a cheap transistor tester (actually does a lot more),
https://www.mikrocontroller.net/articles/AVR_Transistortester
There are 100s of different clones of these available in china. Go to e.g., aliexpress and search for "transistor tester". Most of the things that come up there are the mentioned clones. (One example here in case your search gives different results https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Mega328-Transistor-Tester-Diode-Triode-Capacitance-ESR-Meter-MOS-PNP-NPN-M328/32679703774.html ).
Once people find out the source of this they come to the huge discussion thread of the project and ask for help (why does it not work, software upgrades, ...) for their devices. The main guy is actually helpful towards them. In some cases the Chinese clones have been changed in software or hardware and help is not that easy. Looking at the discussion thread this takes significant resources.
First - it is not really an open source project if it doesn't want to publish the design files/documentation. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep that secret, but then, please, don't use the "open source" moniker.
Second - yes, the issue with clones is real - just look at Saleae (they produce USB logic analyzer). Their original hardware was widely cloned, because it was basically just a repurposed devboard for a common chip loaded with custom firmware that they made freely downloadable.
That said, the Saleae case also shows how not publishing the design files is ineffective - Saleae didn't publish anything, but all it took for the device to be cloned was someone buying a genuine one and reverse engineering it. It is not that difficult to do if someone really wants to do it.
So in the end who gets punished by the files not being available? Certainly not the cloners but more likely your own legitimate customers who will have more tricky time integrating the device into their own projects or repairing it.
Concerning support of the 3rdparty clones - nobody should be obligated to support unofficial hardware. Just don't be an ass about it, pulling another FTDI (company that tried to sabotage/brick the clones).
1. The community creating an open source design is not obliged to support it. Sure not.
2. The reason to go open source is actually to let others make it. Not? And Chinese are included in other.
3. This has worked for a zillion projects. Having cheap Chinese clones is actually a benefit. Universally available (think free shipping) affordable hardware is boosting the project. Yes, there will be support requests. But also there will be talented new members to the project to provide that. Worst case there will be a fork, and a new community forms around the cheap knockoffs.
Vajk
There are a few issues with people using the oshw gear logo without any requirements or even a specific definition.
Here is a good video on the topic from Dave Jones of the EEVBlog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wrSXCBdalc
Microsoft (closed source) turned a blind eye on piracy in order to establish a foothold and then dominate the market. These guys claim to be open source yet deny people copying their design so they won't get an influx of support requests?
If these guys aren't already an established brand, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot. First you establish a foothold and you can worry about too many people asking for support later.
Why not have a support demarc/mpoe, where regardless of the hardware involved, you choose to operate under the assumption that the asker is using "offical hardware" and proceed from there?
Of course, this assumes we're discussing free support. Paid support? No. You want paid support for an open source hardware project, you buy and authenticate yourself correctly ( using "official" hardware ).
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Surely if it's Open Source ...
Except in this case it is not open source because the source isn't open. Just because you call yourself "open source" doesn't make it so. You have to actually open the source, and they haven't.
(sorry for the AC but I used mod-points here)
Usually I agree. However, if price differences start to become, like, 1/10th of original retail for a clone with exactly-same specifications, components and good looking board, or 1:20 for an obvious knockoff, using cheaper components but still fully functional, the original manufacturer does start to get a problem. With those kind of ratios it's hard to compete, saying you deliver the original.
It's the difference between 'Let's protect this expensive little piece of hardware, making sure I don't make mistakes connecting other stuff to it' and 'Meh, if it fails I'll throw it away and buy a new one. It's free shipping anyways'.
As I understand, making something open source does not mean you have to support external support requests. It is still quite possible to open source something and have paid support contacts with primary companies to fund the lot. The question of "if I hand it out for free, how do I make money?" is a real question, yet there are plenty of examples of companies that have done exactly that.
Alternatively, make your own licencing scheme - but be aware, you still have to put up with copycats.
The Chinese will clone your stuff if there's value in it. Full stop. Being open source just adds potential for the clones to be more likely to work without issue.
And this is why we have patents.
To protect innovators ability to exploit their innovation so that they can be free to innovate some more.
Unfortunately this mechanism has experienced an enormous amount of abuse, and so we come to the counter mechanism of open source.
Thus the best solution maybe to use both..
How you use both is then the question to answer.
This will depend on the technology involved, what component you can choose to control, what components you can make open source, and also on other aspects of your potential business models.
Isn't the whole point of open source to allow anyone to make it themselves?
I see this debated in the Pixhawk circle quite often. The software developers get all upset that chinese vendors used the schematics to produce their own products (??? isn't this the whole point). The 3DR(American) pixhawk costs 2-3x as much as the Chinese version (many wouldn't even own a Pixhawk if they had to buy it at those inflated prices). While the developers make all these claims about how their product is QA tested, they still have all the problems the chinese ones do (or one could say the chinese version has all the problems inherent in the design).
For example, the 3DR version had IMU1 problems because the design had the chip too close to the edge of the PCB, and the vibrations from cutting ruined the chip. The American version has that issue, but the newest 2.4.8 chinese version moves that chip inwards. Wait- the chinese improved upon the design, shocking! The american developers that rip into the product non-stop never mention that.
Or the IMU2 problems with the chip stuck in a brownout state (apparently a very common problem with the LSM303d accelerometer). The original open source design doesn't provide proper discharging of the sensor rail. Chinese fixed that as well
Clones? That isn't very accurate terminology. More like "forks." The 3DR Pixhawk left many issues unresolved, years after they were discovered. Now 3DR has stopped making the original Pixhawk, so if it wasn't for the Chinese forks, there wouldn't be any more. That doesn't get mentioned as a plus either.
It's quite impressive that these people have succeeded in getting people to describe their product as open source.
Unless there are treaties or agreements Country A has no reason to follow the laws of Country B. So copyright is only a thing in countries that agree to it, and ACTIVELY enforce it.
And even if there ARE agreements and enforcement, it can be HIGHLY selective... almost no European country will extradite a criminal to the US if they are facing the death penalty.
China and all the other 3rd world shit holes don't care about copyright or enforcement unless you pay them... even then its hit or miss.
Usually, when you open the source and want to market it, you trademark the product name, so everybody can copy and clone it ( which is the purpose of open source), but not under the name you control. So they will not be able to taint your reputation.
Simple as that.
aaaaaaa
...and clones will support YOU!
And this is why we have patents. To protect innovators ability to exploit their innovation so that they can be free to innovate some more.
That's one reason. Another reason is so the innovators can recoup the investment they made for their innovation, the R&D. A cloner only has to pay for the marginal cost of production, not the original R&D expenses. Without the ability to recoup R&D expenses it would be nearly impossible to find investors will to fund an endeavor.
Certainly. Clones can be made at any level of the hardware. The boards can be reverse engineered, entire chips can be cloned at various levels of the design. Portions of a chip that perform a certain feature can be clones, let's say a media decoder or an encryption function. Those blocks of logic are licensed out and pretty expensive, so they have watermarks and fingerprinting codes hidden within their circuits. A company can save millions by copying chunks of IP without paying the designers of it. The tricks is not getting caught.
It's a fascinating game of cat and mouse on the hardware side, there are ways to prevent people using parts or all of your hardware but it adds overhead and complexity. Both sides have a trade off on how much it's worth making or breaking protections based on projected sales and how much it costs to add or defeat a protection.
For an open source hardware project they'd probably just use a watermark and not even bother with fingerprinting individual chips, leaving it wide open to being copied. They don't have a budget for many security techniques.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Support them? No. You provide a forum and if the community wants to support them then it can. But equally you must not go out of your way to impede them, or you will destroy your community. Arduino would be less than half as popular today without cheap chinese clones.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Surely if it's Open Source ...
Except in this case it is not open source because the source isn't open. Just because you call yourself "open source" doesn't make it so. You have to actually open the source, and they haven't.
Its possible for the software to be open source but not the hardware. For example the drivers for a device may be open source, the system software for an appliance, etc.
not the original R&D expenses.
Since patents are rewarded regardless of the R&D cost, even if the cost is zero, it's pretty disingenuous to claim that patents are needed to cover R&D cost.
Patents in general are a full-on scam, they don't even have a reasonable, objective measure of whether an idea is new or not - the verbal nonsense that passes for reasoning about the originality or not of ideas is laughable.
I wonder if some developers genuinely don't understand what Open Source means, and just use the tag as a convenient buzzphrase? Describing projects that aren't really Open as Open Source is a problem that goes back to the early days, and affects software as well as hardware. e.g. LinuxSampler still defiantly claims to be Open Source a decade or so after after being dropped from major Linux distributions because it clearly isn't (and has a contradictory licence that doesn't make it properly non-free either).
I've got a software+hardware project I'd like to (when it works) release as BSD/GPL/open-source. I'd be flattered if it was popular enough get knock-offs and derivatives. But I don't want to have to deal with my software not quite working right for these third party hardwares. So can I restrict use of my software+firmware+hardware to, "yes, here's all the code and design, open source, but if you change anything don't use my VID+PID, get your own"? Is this still open source, and can I still use the GPL? (BTW, I got my VID+PID from http://www.mcselec.com/ for 15euro, and there's open hardware projects, OpenMoko, I think, that also provide them.)
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Correct, except they should actively block clone makers who use their source, but don't comply with their license (which I'm assuming requires the clone makers to open source their derivatives).
The word "open" has been used in software and hardware before to mean, there is some kind of API that a small subset of companies are allowed to use when they pay a percentage of profit and also pay to get a copy of the documentation of said API.
That said, no, open source hardware projects have no obligation to support anybody, let alone clone makers, but it's not open source if the source isn't open. Meaning they shouldn't actively block clone makers.
The software side of the project may be open source. The drivers, system software, etc. That would make it fair to describe a project as open source.
Also to expand on what you said, open source does *not* mean making your source code or hardware design universally available. You are only obligated to provide it to your customers, albeit with no restrictions on redistribution. Therefore it would be entirely consistent with open source to verify someone is a customer before providing any support. Furthermore it is also entirely consistent with open source to charge for any technical assistance beyond providing the source code or hardware design.
FWIW, the company could charge for technical support of non-cusomters and refer these paying non-customers to their hardware supplier if the hardware is in question. We sort of did that at a company I did technical support for long ago when I was starting out. Not many non-customer paid for support but very few were angry since they understood they had not purchased anything from us. It probably helped that these were more technical folks and not the public at large.
Yes, definitely this. They shouldn't be calling themselves "open source".
not the original R&D expenses.
Since patents are rewarded regardless of the R&D cost, even if the cost is zero, it's pretty disingenuous to claim that patents are needed to cover R&D cost.
No, as the preceding two posts demonstrate recouping R&D is not the sole motivation for patents. The fact remains that some innovation requires a substantial investment in R&D, and without an ability to recoup that R&D the innovation will likely remain unexplored. Recouping R&D is essential to supporting some innovations, patents help make this possible, therefore patents support innovation.
That said, yes there is abuse in the patent system, the awarding of unworthy patents. However such abuse does not change the fact that patents provide an important tool that supports innovation.
I'm member of a tiny OSHW team with a well known product and tons of clones on eBay, Banggood, Alibaba and so on. Actually, we're happy to have the inexpensive clones. It's more expensive to make the device yourself (the project was intended as a DIY project for electronics hobbyists). Also we don't have to deal with any manufacturing and certifications (FCC, CE etc.). We don't sell anything, just provide the schematics, firmware source, documentation and some support. So we have more time for improving the firmware and adding new features. Meanwhile there's an active community supporting newcomers and discussing which clone is the best at the moment, for example. Some have great ideas for new features, some support us with small donations like component samples or LCD modules. The downside of the clones is that a lot of the vendors don't provide any documenation or a link the project's web page. Some modify the firmware, predening it's theirs, and don't submit their changes to the project. Several lock the MCU to prevent users from reading the firmware (WTF! It's open source!). But the clone quality is quite good in most cases. In the beginning we've seen a few small issues with badly choosen components which could be fixed easily with a soldering iron.
Whenever it's for hardware or for software, the point to make a project open source is to create a community to support and improve the project, not to make money. Starting from that point I found cheap clone a rater big advantage, because this offload the production problem and make the project accessible to more and more peoples with almost no management. Instead of fighting against clones, it better to take advantage of them.
While you are correct that the word "open" has been used (some would say misused) that way, the phrase "open source" clearly has a different meaning and refers to making the source available, not just access to an API.
If they are an open-source hardware project but haven't released the spec, then THEY'RE NOT OPEN SOURCE.
If they release the hardware specs but sign their own hardware and don't release the key that's still fine.
They can then request anyone who wants "support" (the question in this /. posting) to provide authentication of OEM purchase.
No auth - no support. It could even be automated. Just like Motorola's "Can my device be unlocked?" site, they could have a
"do I have a Genuine OpenSourceHardwareProject Board eligible for support?" page.
Everything else is dissembling (that's the politician's word for LYING and EVADING).
Either they REALLY ARE OPEN-SOURCE HARDWARE PROJECT (no, right now they're not), or they are.
E
http://www.tiplj.org/wp-conten...
Ref section 99.
That's not an authoritative citation.
It's the opinion of David G. Luettgen in a journal article, which claims computer programs are also not copyrightable. It also claims in its conclusion that electrical circuits are a creative expression, while computer programs are not.
The guy is kind of talking out his arse.
Agreed. Also, reference isn't implementation. If you're in the business of selling and supporting artifacts, identify and police your work. If you rely on the community to support it, it should also be able to accommodate clones.
If you're worried about clones flooding the market (a sign you're doing something right), use a trademark. Trademark law is rather impressive at what it can accomplish.
If a community is fearful that clones will kill innovation (meh), then shun the clones with the tools you're familiar with. Otherwise, suck it up and expand your insular world to include clones; you might find that they add to the culture.
'..e.g. LinuxSampler still defiantly claims to be Open Source a decade or so after after being dropped from major Linux distributions because it clearly isn't (and has a contradictory licence that doesn't make it properly non-free either).'
I refer you to here and here where there are links to the source code..the various components being covered by GPL, GPLv2, GPLv2, GPL, LGPL, GPL, and GPL with the following exception
'..[*] LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the subject, that are not yet covered by the FAQ, please contact us.'
So, not open source, eh?
The components are NOT GPL'ed or otherwise free-software. If you change the terms of the GPL in a way that makes it incompatible with other source code under the GPL, it is NOT a GPL license.
However, the source is available, so it IS open source.
open source does *not* mean making your source code or hardware design universally available.
You are only obligated to provide it to your customers,
what a LOAD OF BULLSHIT, maybe you should actually READ the software licenses you claim to be an expert on
yes ! dream multimedia and their dreamoxes got cloned, everyone buys cheap cloned, then expect support from DM . Also their software was open source .
It's not open source if it doesn't come with the complete source that someone else can "compile" into hardware. It's not open source if it comes with a "look but don't touch" license.
Huh?
I thought that was the distinction between "open source" and "free foo":
"open source" software MIGHT come with a license that ALSO makes it "free software", but "free software" includes an explicit license to use and modify (with the only restrictions being some variant on requiring derivative works to also be open - which may include not enforcing patents against license-conforming users ) while "open source" may only guarantee you can read and pass on the design, not that you can modify it, run it, "practice the invention" or whatever.
Of course open source software is USUALLY also free software, or close to it, depending on the license.
Has the language drifted? Did I misunderstand from the beginning? Or is the second part of your assertion mistaken?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Both are open source platforms. Software and hardware. Many copies available from China and elsewhere. Some clones has improvements. Some are worse. But the Chinese models has helped the community grow. Would never have bought original.
FWIW, I think Australia is thinking about becoming a "third world shithole" by threating to ignore copyrights on foreign works on the grounds that people won't stop making English language works that they will be able to pirate.
Food for thought...
I have used and loved arduino for a while. Without clones, I quite simply could not have afforded to buy them in the quantities that I needed to make them useful. And please don't give me any crap about supporting the originators, if that is something that you want to do, then go right ahead. My choices are not going to be affected by others' whining.
I find it curious that there aren't any real raspberry pi knockoffs. I really would love me some of those, not out of some dislike of the raspberry people, but because of the supply chain in between. I can't get a raspberry zero, and even if I could it would probably be in the $20 USD range delivered. It is close to $50 USD for a Raspberry Pi 3 from my local store. If I could get a Pi knockoff from China I am willing to bet that it would be $20 delivered. I feel jerked around by the suppliers of Arduinos and Pis, Ebay/alibaba is "You give us a minimal amount of money, and we reliably(and slowly) ship you a product with a very modest markup."
Is Linux "supporting" crappy compiled linux kernels or just "enabling" them?
My experience that there are crappy vendor clones of linux of (i.e. terribly hardware specific, marginally documented, buggy, not maintained), but i have never seen the crap they do being "supported" in the way that it would have made it's way into the mainline (yes, that is what "supporting" means).
And don't call me 'Shirley.' :-P
First, let me try to shed some light on what "hardware project" is, comparing it to a "software project". But before that, let me introduce myself, and introduce what I do in regards to Open Source, and my still active projects.
I am the author of ZPUino, which is a SoC (System on a Chip) targeted at FPGAs although it can be built on an ASIC. ZPU (Zylin CPU [1], which is the "core" of ZPUino) was not designed by me, in terms of its ISA (Instruction Set Architecture). The ZPU core inside ZPUino is however much different from the original ZPU, featuring a fully pipelined design and yielding very very good performance, whilst maintaining the "small" footprint as originaly designed. It would not be possible to design, implement and "ship" this version of ZPU unless Zylin had a highly permissive license - BSD.
ZPUino merges this enhanced ZPU core (ZPU Extreme core, written by me) with a huge set of devices, as commonly seen in a SoC. So we have, as open-source hardware: UART SPI Timers Interrupt LED HDMI VGA I2C, Memory SRAM SDRAM DDR plus many other eccentric controllers you cannot find in regular SoCs like those in rPI. All those are Open-Source, and the HW design is released on BSD license - so anyone can benefit from them even without giving back. [sorry for lack of commas, the lame filter kicked in]
This is a hardware project. The designs are hardware designs, and despite being written in VHDL, does not make it software. You can not say that, since it's not a printed circuit board, and no wires to see, that it is not a hardware project. Hardware projects describe hardware primitives and interconnections.
Still, they are described using languages, much similar to how software is (for example, VHDL is very close to ADA, which is still widely used in the space industry). PCBs, schematics, can also be described in languages (think EDIF) - as well as their outputs (thing GERBER and DRILL). So there is no much difference between software and hardware here.
Now, back to the "cloning" topic: someone said "chinese clone them all, does not need to be open source" - and this is correct. Your design is not protected just because you did not open it. If you require protection, seek patents and trademarks. And if someone massively clones your HW and SW, you're a hell of a lucky guy you made something people want (cause it does sell, otherwise no one would clone it), you just seem to miss the target price point.
Plus, you can for sure give added value from buying the original product. Arduino (they seem to have reach an agreement today) sells their own HW at 20x price you can buy from china. Still they do sell, and they are not bothered by it - it is expected.
If you want to go open, go open and they clone. If you want to close it, they will open it and clone. How can you benefit from all those clones ? That's the big question.
Alvie
The software side of the project may be open source. The drivers, system software, etc. That would make it fair to describe a project as open source.
That would make it a hardware project with open source software.
It would in no way make it an open source hardware project.
The software side of the project may be open source. The drivers, system software, etc. That would make it fair to describe a project as open source.
Sure, the software side, yeah, but this is called the Open Source Scan Converter, not the Open Source Scan Converter Software, or the Open Source Scan Converter Firmware. The question was specifically about hardware projects. If you're billing yourself as an open source hardware project, then you have to make the source hardware designs available or else it's just not true.
Now I'm not seeing anywhere where the OSSC guys have billed the hardware as open source, there's no announcement, no web site explaining their goals and vision, just some guy who made a board and is selling kits and giving away the firmware, so I'm not convinced it really applies here. That said, if you are touting yourself as an open source hardware project, and the information on how to build the hardware isn't open, then you're just lying to everyone.
This almost sounds like an e plantation of why 3dr is dying...
You are wrong. The OSI definition of open source software is basically the same as the free software definition:
https://opensource.org/osd
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 software.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
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.
etc.
It doesn't sound like you've quite understood the arrangement. The copyright lobby is very powerful indeed in Australia. We have an elegant system here where opposition governments are allowed to make empty promises of pro-consumer copyright reform with the expectation that nothing will ever done about it once they get into power. Meanwhile pro-monopoly copyright reform is quietly passed by the serving government of the day under the pretence of free trade. There still is no exception for fair use under Australian copyright law for crying out loud, and both parties have been promising to get around to it for decades.
There is no "fact". We don't know if patents support innovation because we've built a world around patents. You make the classic case that investment wouldn't happen without a granted monopoly. That all sounds very reasonable and deterministic but isn't supported by evidence and boils down to ideology. It's just as easy to make the case that patents have been a net brake on innovation. There is actually some supporting evidence of that when you compare the performance of different industries with different levels of patent exploitation.
Most hardware is dependant on some proprietary software components. Do you mean "open source" hardware in that the components are not dependant on these proprietary bits? Or do you meant the hardware designs are available, but the components can be dependent on proprietary software bits? Or that both all hardware and software bits must be released?
The is the problem with "open source". It doesn't mean what it implies. It could mean any number of things. It's very confusing. The use of the word open makes everything very confusing.
EOMA68 is releasing the PCB designs and the sources needed for all critical functionality. It's libre both in the PCB designs being released and the code needed to use each of the critical components is being released.
I agree, software losers are now trying to mess up our hobby. Stick your gay ass licenses you know where.
Here's the schematic, build it yourself freaks.
The source is totally open man, I unlock it every morning and make sure nothing gets tangled or stuck.
Yes, yes. Product conceived and designed by a small instrumentation company located to the west of Portland, OR. Instrument was cloned without our knowledge or consent and advertised for sale in PRC. They cloned the "first generation" device, which we only manufactured in small quantities and which proved to have an unsupportable maintenance burden in the field. By the time we became aware of the clone, we had moved on. Although I didn't have visibility on the business or sales, I doubt there was any real economic harm. I think that if the cloners had understood how difficult the device was to support, they wouldn't have bothered.
You are wrong. The OSI definition of open source software is basically the same as the free software definition:...
Thank you.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The source code only has to be available to the people you ship binaries to.
Consider the following excerpts from the GNU General Public License, versions 2 and 3:
This offer must be available to "any third party".
This offer must be available to "anyone who possesses the object code", including someone who received a copy other than from you.
So, not open source, eh?
No, not Open Source, which rather makes my point. The Open Source Definition explicitly forbids restrictions on commercial use ('No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor'). The developers claim there are 'many definitions' of Open Source, which isn't correct for software, and the current version of the Wikipedia page they link to doesn't support this claim. This is not the main problem with the LinuxSampler licence, however. Instead of writing their own licence, they've added a restriction to the GPL, which isn't allowed if you still want to call it the GPL. This means that their licence contradicts itself, which is one reason why you won't find Linuxsampler in (say) Debian non-free. The developers are of course perfectly free to distribute their software for non-commercial use only, but they just haven't gone about it in the right way. They should just drop the 'Open Source' claim and come up with their own licence (which could be based on the GPL, but should not include the preamble, GPL branding, or anything else that conflicts with their non-commercial clause).
It's F...ing OPEN to anybody. That means clones are welcome. Don't claim OPEN if you don't MEAN OPEN!!!
It can be self-defeating if the clone they produce is even MORE flawed because they made a poor schematic for themselves, and didn't really understand the project. Same reasoning goes for your software/firmware documentation: If the protocols/concepts/overall functionality of your design is straightforward, than documenting the physical board on all by a functional level is redundant. They could more easily create a redesigned and cheaper version of the hardware, that just runs the same code. See: ATMega Nano clones :)
This particular project is pretty much hardware, unless you're counting the FPGA config as the software. Check out http://retrogaming.hazard-city... for a description (it's a review, but it has pictures and some explanation of functionality).