Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source Hardware Makers Unite To Start Certifying Products (infoworld.com)
An anonymous reader quotes InfoWorld on the new certifications from the Open Source Hardware Association:
The goal of certification is to clearly identify open-source hardware separate from the mish-mash of other hardware products. The certification allows hardware designs to be replicated. For certification, OSHWA requires hardware creators to publish a bill-of-materials list, software, schematics, design files, and other documents required to make derivative products. Those requirements could apply to circuit boards, 3D printed cases, electronics, processors, and any other hardware that meets OSHWA's definition of open-source hardware...OSHWA will host a directory for all certified products, something that doesn't exist today because the community is so fragmented.
After signing a legally-binding agreement, hardware makers are allowed to use the Open Hardware mark, which one of their board members believes will help foster a stronger sense of community among hardware makers. "People want to be associated with open source."
After signing a legally-binding agreement, hardware makers are allowed to use the Open Hardware mark, which one of their board members believes will help foster a stronger sense of community among hardware makers. "People want to be associated with open source."
Fake news. Stuff that doesn't matter.
You have my vote.
Apps 2020!
Faggets don't reproduce. Otherwise it would be called cross-species breeding, and it is sick.
Well it's good to know you won't be making any kids.
What a stupid sounding acronym. Still not as bad as Devuan!
This sounds like a good early step towards a more technologically free future. It may not be enough to prevent the Skynet apocalypse, but it's nice to see at least a few people making the effort. Personally I only trust product manufacturers that don't behave as though not trusting them is a bad thing.
I want an open source Tesla, and an open source house, I am broke.
Now if only all other faggets stopped having sick perverted sex with females a century ago, we wouldn't have faggets today spoiling life on this planet.
That includes cave monkeys in india.
Its one thing to certify its another to actually support. We have a lot of hardware that works with open source, but it only takes one piece of hardware to not work and since many don't have the luxury of building hardware into a device. Your not always going to find a 100% compliant device. Even the Linux native installed notebooks have some issues. Unfortunately even today hardware working with Windows or OS X can be hit or miss. Let alone the many distro's of Linux out there.
Open Hardware is a good thing to make, but we need to be aware of its limitations. Regardless of the license used, creating a device from the plans is not copyright infringement.
Let's make sure everyone understands that. You can manufacture an open hardware design, regardless of the license, and share nothing, and it is not a crime.
It is, however, potentially a copyright infringement if you publish the plans in violation of the license.
This is because of this text in copyright law. This is the US version but there are similar things in many nations.
The reason for this is that functional things such as hardware are protected by patent rather than copyright.
We should also consider what would happen if Open Hardware licenses could be enforced using copyright. Suddenly, any published schematic in a book or online publication would be protected using copyright and the copyright enforced on hardware manufacturers, including all of those in books that exist today. Which would have a major chilling effect on the Open Hardware industry and hardware production in general. We do not want this to happen.
Thus, in general we should not use copyright-based licenses on hardware, lest the courts begin to consider this to be normal practice and create case law that supports it. Courts and legislators do this, it's how we got software patents and other nightmares of today. Let's not encourage them.
Bruce Perens.
Wrong. I'm making kids with you.
Use of copyright on intermediate copies is effective for using copyright to restrict the use of software. The end product of software is the execution of the software in the CPU, and is not possible to separate the execution from the intermediate copying which precedes it.
So, some legal theorists suggested using intermediate copying to restrict the production of 3D-printed objects using copyright, even though the objects themselves can not be protected with copyright under 17 USC 102(b) and similar law.
Use of copyright on intermediate copies is not, however, effective for restriction of copying of two-dimensional or three dimensional shapes, because the end product is a rendering or physical object which can be measured independently of the program that created it, and embodies all of the attributes of the shape. In the case of fonts, one need only render the font in a license-compliant manner, and then trace the outline of the resulting glyph into another program. This is a well-established way of bringing typefaces into Open Source from proprietary fonts, without copyright infringement.
In the case of 3D objects, any means of fitting a mesh or other geometric representation to the created shape would provide a means to bring that shape into another program in a manner that does not infringe on the copyright of the program or data which is used to create the shape. This would include various methods of scanning, optical ones or even exotic things such as CT and MRI. It would also be possible to record the physical movement of the printer or the light beam in producing the object, and map that back to a shape.
So, we have well-established precedent and I'd feel very comfortable testifying about 3D objects (and of course typefaces) not being capable of protection using copyright, in a relevant case.
Design patents, on the other hand, would work fine.
Bruce Perens.
From your butt?
The article mentions a Beaglebone Black as "open source" - does this lack the management engine that is commonly included with ARM processors?
The only open/modern CPU that I know of that lacks a management engine is the SPARC T2.
Open Hardware makes sense, but not in the context of "everybody can take the plans and build the device". Where it works is when customers can purchase the same device from multiple manufacturing sources. This lowers the risk of the device becoming unavailable, and it gives you an option if the manufacturer raises the price, or there is a problem at one manufacurer. For electronic components, there is already a widespread belief that you don't want to use components that lack a second source. Open Hardware will hopefully extend this idea to entire electronic devices.
I was vaguely aware of these things (as I've been reading /. since 1999). The real question is whether or not the combination of Edward Snowden and Donald Trump will provide the necessary impetus for critical mass to finally be achieved. Or whether or not the powers that be are aware enough of how much of a threat this is to certain spycraft, and how successful they are in running interference to prevent it from becoming a viable solution for the masses for another few decades.
I'm a woman you sexist racist nazi.
You can't poke bits into RAM by hand either, but it's not really important.
Unless you have really small hands and a LAZER to drill the probe holes your hands can somehow fit into. :)
The problem is like "open" source its totally unclear what is even mean by "open" hardware. While I am a big advocate of releasing and have been personally involved in releasing schematics and the complete set of source code needed for devices (and am still involved in doing that) I dislike this "open" hardware phenomenon. A user can't go out and reproduce hardware and the people releasing schematics don't help further freedom when the components used are dependant on proprietary software (the one thing a user could actually change themselves if they had the code). "Open" has lost all its value and meaning because of projects like the Raspberry Pi, "Linux" (ie the kernel), and similar. If any part of a project is proprietary (and often there are proprietary components) it's not really "open". The RYF certification from the Free Software Foundation is far from perfect, doesn't related to schematics, etc, and isn't even really enough to determine if something is really 100% or not. However I have more respect for it then an organization calling itself "open".
Pre or post operation?
i tried explaining the problem to the OSHWA group: they didn't get it. the problem with their Certification Programme is that there's nothing in their document which covers liability if a design causes injury or death (deliberate or accidental). the OSHWA group is therefore setting themselves up for a class action lawsuit where some incompetent person designs something extremely badly, slaps an OSHWA logo on it, then a chinese company goes and copies it (logo included... without bothering to find out what the logo's actually for), somebody dies in an electrical fire and the family gets an aggressive lawyer to sue and blame (rightly in this case) the people they deem to have been responsible.
what's particularly troublesome is that the OSHWA's Programme is "self-certifying" Certification Programmes *NEED* to actually have clout behind them, with money put aside to be able to take legal action against people who bring the Certificate into disrepute (using Trademark Law - not patents, not copyright), and there needs to be clauses and phrases that define and assign responsibility and liability. the OSHWA document has been written by well-meaning and unfortunately very naive people who cannot comprehend how much of a risk they are taking, who have not thought things through properly. they haven't taken legal advice, and they have no idea of the distinction between "Libre" and "Open".
what is useful however is that their mailing list is a focus for like-minded people to congregate and communicate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion