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?
And the chinese clone everything, doesn't matter if it's open source or not.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
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.
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
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.
I don't see them keeping the schematic to themselves as being a real solution
schematics are not protected by copyright law. as in: they are uncopyrightable, by definition of them being a "functional description". it is a common mistake (even amongst the open hardware community) to assume that schematics may be copyrighted. what *may* be copyrighted is for example an aesthetic layout of a PCB, because that is a creative process.
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).
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.
No we can't. Circuit schematics is generally not copyrightable, because it only documents the workings of something else - a physical circuit. It is not considered a work in itself.
Even if it was, then the only thing that copyright license would do is to protect the schematics - not someone reproducing the actual circuit. For that you would have to patent it - which may not be possible (circuit is well known, for ex.) or not practical (patenting costing more than the widget itself). Not to mention that patents are not likely to stop an Asian fly-by-night cloner.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"schematics are not protected by copyright law."
Authoritative citation needed.
Anyone who's dealt with electronics knows the difference between a well drawn schematic and one which isn't. There is significant skill involved in creating good schematics. Else, why are there tools for creating and editing them which let you control the layout? Why not simply enter a netlist and then let some program create the schematic?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
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.
"On 30 November 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit schematics are not covered by copyright laws."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
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.