My main interest on this issue is to have something like reciprocal licensing in software that I can use to keep people from making their modifications to my design trade-secret. It is sometimes a fact that locking up a design is an economic disadvantage. If that were true all of the time, we would not need reciprocal licensing.
Re:Does 'hardware' extend to FPGAs and the like
on
Open Hardware Journal
·
· Score: 1
The Papilio has another way to get the design working - at least from the gate-array pins outward. It hosts an AVR8 implemented in the gate-array, and that can be programmed as if it's an Arduino. Make your design work with that - at least slowly - before you make the gate-array program.
Vista's media protection was intrusive. Going back farther, you might remember copy protection dongles. I sincerely would put both of those things in the same bag with the Motorola battery lock and its failure in this case, the stupid way my HP printer is programmed to behave once I reload ink in its reservoirs, and the need to jailbreak an iPhone. They are all instances of the software placing someone else's agenda above that of the customer.
I have the.odt file, the only reason it's not up is that I'm worried about cloners putting the journal in the iphone appstore under their own name and charging $$$. I would pass it to anyone with a good reason to work on it.
What the Motorola embedded software was doing about its preferred brand of battery was sufficiently similar to what media copy-protection does. These things are always software, with only as much hardware as it takes to implement to them. Now that Windows 8 will insist on UEFI, we're seeing something very similar to the Motorola hardware platform and its manufacturer-interest-enforcing embedded software.
When we say Open platform, it really means a vendor willing to sell hardware without locking down the software in it.
I have not yet seen an embarrassment of riches, as far as the count of submitted papers is concerned. If one actually happens, perhaps the best way to handle it would be spin-off of more journals. YouTube seems to want Open Hardware for datacenters, and I have a guy who wants to make people more comfortable on their motorcycles. They are both valid markets for journals. And then there is an entire wearable segment. There are already good magazines for radio hams, and they are going Open Hardware in what they ask for of their authors. I'm sure that other existing venues will trend toward Open Hardware as well.
I did struggle with the LibreOffice layout, especially image wrap. Not sure I want to go back to my nroff days, though:-) Given the choice, I'd like to try to drive some improvement in LibreOffice. We might help more people that way.
Re:Does 'hardware' extend to FPGAs and the like
on
Open Hardware Journal
·
· Score: 2
Get a book on Verilog and VHDL, and a Papilio One. $50 for 250K gates. There's a 500K gate model for $75.
Alas, the software is mostly proprietary but at least low-or-zero cost. We will eventually get Open Hardware gate-arrays, but we're not there yet.
Write up what you'd like to do at wiki.openhardware.org . Can't do much without a proposal. I am hoping that the smart parts of the movement will congregate there.
My short term goals are 1. To make sure we don't have a license mess, like we got with Open Source software. 2. To promote that people share essentially the same rights as in the Open Source Definition. 3. To promote the movement toward Open Hardware in general.
The CERN folks, and others, have been working on archive sites for designs, so that designs don't die with your personal web site. Sort of like Sourceforge or GitHub. It's good to have more than one.
An Open Hardware bong. Well, when I was in Tunis, they had a hashish bar in the middle of the shopping mall. And you can use it for tobacco, and there do seem to be legitimate pipe joints around here (San Francisco Bay Area) with tobacco in bongs. So, yes, but it would have to be a good paper. Not just "here's my design and I dare you". You'd have to find something interesting to say.
I intend to get a paper selection committee together. Hopefully by issue 4. Right now, I'm it, but that doesn't generally get respect for journals.
It is a fact that most papers will be "documentation of practice" rather than scientific experiments. That's just the nature of the field. But we aren't trying to get down to anyone's level, there's already Make magazine if you want the Popular Mechanics of the movement.
The main reasons for creating yet another logo are:
We need a controlled-use logo for use in enforcing Open Hardware licenses where copyright is insufficient. The gear logo has already had too much uncontrolled use.
The gear logo is reminiscent of the OSI logo. But only us insiders will know about OSI. It's not so useful in giving an idea about Open Hardware to outsiders. Marketing programs like this should, of course, be outward-facing.
Am I the only one who has a problem with OSI?:-)
The chip-and-lock logo is language-independent. It says something without words, which the gear logo doesn't quite do.
The chip-and-lock logo is more position-independent than the gear logo. But not perfect. Many of the objects we would put it upon do not have a preferred orientation.
Are you going to focus on things that are actually worthy, or will it be nothing but nonsense about 3D printing?
FIrst, if I am not mistaken the RepRap guys want to be copied.
However, I have also taken the RepRap guys to task for overstating what their system can do. I have a slide in my current talk about Open Hardware regarding the fact that you absolutely can't print a makerbot with a makerbot. Only some of the plastic parts.
I also hate going to Eric Drexler's talks, because so much about nanotech still doesn't work. I am with you on that.
I can't do much about folks who only read the headline, they're rampant on Slashdot. But if you read the article, I think the guy worked very hard to explain that printers can't even approach optical precision right now, and he showed that his current lenses are only good for colliminating flashlight illumination rather than manipulating images. I found his technique to be innovative, I would not have thought of making lenses at all with the current state of the art. And the real point is that extruders will get better, and we'll be able to use these techniques to go to next steps when they do. IMO, it was the most scientific paper in that issue. And he did show that his result was, to a great extent, a failure.
It sounds like there's going to be enough content to balance out the 3D stuff to everyone's satisfaction.
The plan is to license the chip-and-lock logo so that you can use it on your designs if they are under a certified Open Hardware license, and if you contract, in writing, to honor Open Hardware licenses as if copyright applied, even if it doesn't.
The idea, in part, is that if you copy a PC board bearing the logo without signing the contract to honor the license, you're infringing. It's a kludge, but it gets us some of the license enforcement that we are used to with software.
Unfortunately, we can't do that with the "gear" logo, it's already had too much unrestricted use.
But I'd be lying to say I ever liked the gear logo, anyway.
I don't have a clue about how to publish in the AppStore for the iPad and would appreciate if someone out there could give me a primer. I want to make sure, though, that everybody knows this is "Barbarians at the Gates" (pun intended) and that we're not selling out to the appstore paradigm.
Yes, anyone who wants to help with web design, we could use some.
That's not a license. It's a port of the Open Source Definition to hardware. I cleaned it up a bit before the last version was accepted. It pretty much says the same thing as the OSD, and the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Foundation.
I am not recommending the CERN license for U.S. use at this point. The problem I have with it is that the only thing about it that's different from other licenses is that 1. It's written by Europeans, and 2. It's from CERN. We used to accept license for the Open Source Initiative because they were from various large and interesting companies and agencies, and that's how we got 80 incompatible licenses and the license combinatorial problem which was and remains a significant damage to the community. There is specific language in the license for CERN's funders, which is cool if you share funders with CERN but otherwise unnecessary. So, unless you want a specific European license, the CERN license is unnecessarily increasing license proliferation without providing any benefit that I can determine.
1: To me it would seem this effort you are now involved in could act as a catalyst to bring this and the (seemingly) many other open hardware initiatives together, do you agree?
Well, not just bring projects together, but avoid some of the mistakes we made with Open Source. Like have "recommended" licenses, with the recommended set really small, so we don't have the problem of 80 licenses accepted by the Open Source Initiative and no "recommended" list because we can't dis-recommend a license without offending someone. And not start out by building a schism between Free Software and Open Source. I could rant about all of the things that went wrong for a while...
We could use good videos for smart people. The coverage we have so far panders to a lowest common denominator of viewers. I'd be delighted if someone was able to make better videos. If I tried to do it, though, it would eat all of my time.
Yes, we definitely want to stimulate a new movement, and put both thought and experience into it.
Re:How will open hardware prevent project hijackin
on
Open Hardware Journal
·
· Score: 1
If enough people get annoyed, fork the project. I think the biggest problem with OpenOffice was our reluctance to fork, which went on much too long.
I like The TAPR Open Hardware License. But
yes, there is a problem that Hardware Isn't Generally Copyrightable.
We can deal with the problem by using contract law, sometimes, and imperfectly, and by embedding copyrightable and trademarked content. I have a proposal for this that I've not finished yet, I'll try to get it up on the Open Hardware wiki soon.
Sure. Someone, I know, has been working on Open designs for the 50 basic tools for civilization - tractors and plows and stuff. As long as the plans for them are under an Open Hardware license, we're interested in papers about them.
eBooks and tablets are a relatively new phenomenon, but lots of folks have them. PDF works well offline, for these devices, and is well-supported by Free Software as well. I haven't learned the specialized eBook file formats yet.
I tried this on a blog a while back, that is part of what technocrat.net was supposed to be for. What I found was that I was talking with the same 30 people all of the time. And there were maybe 3000 to 5000 regular readers at best.
There's also differentiation - I don't want this to be "just another blog".
And it seems that there is a history for technical journals being in print, and a more recent history of them being open publication. So, I am trying to do something that people who submit papers, and their bosses are used to. I have sometimes, working in academia, been asked to produce a list of my own publications. They seem to take the journal stuff more seriously than the blog stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
My main interest on this issue is to have something like reciprocal licensing in software that I can use to keep people from making their modifications to my design trade-secret. It is sometimes a fact that locking up a design is an economic disadvantage. If that were true all of the time, we would not need reciprocal licensing.
The Papilio has another way to get the design working - at least from the gate-array pins outward. It hosts an AVR8 implemented in the gate-array, and that can be programmed as if it's an Arduino. Make your design work with that - at least slowly - before you make the gate-array program.
The problem is that the only alternative to copyright is trade secret.
Vista's media protection was intrusive. Going back farther, you might remember copy protection dongles. I sincerely would put both of those things in the same bag with the Motorola battery lock and its failure in this case, the stupid way my HP printer is programmed to behave once I reload ink in its reservoirs, and the need to jailbreak an iPhone. They are all instances of the software placing someone else's agenda above that of the customer.
I have the .odt file, the only reason it's not up is that I'm worried about cloners putting the journal in the iphone appstore under their own name and charging $$$. I would pass it to anyone with a good reason to work on it.
When we say Open platform, it really means a vendor willing to sell hardware without locking down the software in it.
I am of course an old friend of PK. I'll look into that.
I have not yet seen an embarrassment of riches, as far as the count of submitted papers is concerned. If one actually happens, perhaps the best way to handle it would be spin-off of more journals. YouTube seems to want Open Hardware for datacenters, and I have a guy who wants to make people more comfortable on their motorcycles. They are both valid markets for journals. And then there is an entire wearable segment. There are already good magazines for radio hams, and they are going Open Hardware in what they ask for of their authors. I'm sure that other existing venues will trend toward Open Hardware as well.
I did struggle with the LibreOffice layout, especially image wrap. Not sure I want to go back to my nroff days, though :-) Given the choice, I'd like to try to drive some improvement in LibreOffice. We might help more people that way.
Alas, the software is mostly proprietary but at least low-or-zero cost. We will eventually get Open Hardware gate-arrays, but we're not there yet.
My short term goals are 1. To make sure we don't have a license mess, like we got with Open Source software. 2. To promote that people share essentially the same rights as in the Open Source Definition. 3. To promote the movement toward Open Hardware in general.
The CERN folks, and others, have been working on archive sites for designs, so that designs don't die with your personal web site. Sort of like Sourceforge or GitHub. It's good to have more than one.
I intend to get a paper selection committee together. Hopefully by issue 4. Right now, I'm it, but that doesn't generally get respect for journals.
It is a fact that most papers will be "documentation of practice" rather than scientific experiments. That's just the nature of the field. But we aren't trying to get down to anyone's level, there's already Make magazine if you want the Popular Mechanics of the movement.
The main reasons for creating yet another logo are:
FIrst, if I am not mistaken the RepRap guys want to be copied.
However, I have also taken the RepRap guys to task for overstating what their system can do. I have a slide in my current talk about Open Hardware regarding the fact that you absolutely can't print a makerbot with a makerbot. Only some of the plastic parts.
I also hate going to Eric Drexler's talks, because so much about nanotech still doesn't work. I am with you on that.
I can't do much about folks who only read the headline, they're rampant on Slashdot. But if you read the article, I think the guy worked very hard to explain that printers can't even approach optical precision right now, and he showed that his current lenses are only good for colliminating flashlight illumination rather than manipulating images. I found his technique to be innovative, I would not have thought of making lenses at all with the current state of the art. And the real point is that extruders will get better, and we'll be able to use these techniques to go to next steps when they do. IMO, it was the most scientific paper in that issue. And he did show that his result was, to a great extent, a failure.
It sounds like there's going to be enough content to balance out the 3D stuff to everyone's satisfaction.
I'll put in a way to do RSS.
The plan is to license the chip-and-lock logo so that you can use it on your designs if they are under a certified Open Hardware license, and if you contract, in writing, to honor Open Hardware licenses as if copyright applied, even if it doesn't.
The idea, in part, is that if you copy a PC board bearing the logo without signing the contract to honor the license, you're infringing. It's a kludge, but it gets us some of the license enforcement that we are used to with software.
Unfortunately, we can't do that with the "gear" logo, it's already had too much unrestricted use.
But I'd be lying to say I ever liked the gear logo, anyway.
Yes, anyone who wants to help with web design, we could use some.
That's not a license. It's a port of the Open Source Definition to hardware. I cleaned it up a bit before the last version was accepted. It pretty much says the same thing as the OSD, and the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Foundation.
I am not recommending the CERN license for U.S. use at this point. The problem I have with it is that the only thing about it that's different from other licenses is that 1. It's written by Europeans, and 2. It's from CERN. We used to accept license for the Open Source Initiative because they were from various large and interesting companies and agencies, and that's how we got 80 incompatible licenses and the license combinatorial problem which was and remains a significant damage to the community. There is specific language in the license for CERN's funders, which is cool if you share funders with CERN but otherwise unnecessary. So, unless you want a specific European license, the CERN license is unnecessarily increasing license proliferation without providing any benefit that I can determine.
Well, not just bring projects together, but avoid some of the mistakes we made with Open Source. Like have "recommended" licenses, with the recommended set really small, so we don't have the problem of 80 licenses accepted by the Open Source Initiative and no "recommended" list because we can't dis-recommend a license without offending someone. And not start out by building a schism between Free Software and Open Source. I could rant about all of the things that went wrong for a while...
We could use good videos for smart people. The coverage we have so far panders to a lowest common denominator of viewers. I'd be delighted if someone was able to make better videos. If I tried to do it, though, it would eat all of my time.
Yes, we definitely want to stimulate a new movement, and put both thought and experience into it.
If enough people get annoyed, fork the project. I think the biggest problem with OpenOffice was our reluctance to fork, which went on much too long.
I like The TAPR Open Hardware License. But yes, there is a problem that Hardware Isn't Generally Copyrightable. We can deal with the problem by using contract law, sometimes, and imperfectly, and by embedding copyrightable and trademarked content. I have a proposal for this that I've not finished yet, I'll try to get it up on the Open Hardware wiki soon.
Sure. Someone, I know, has been working on Open designs for the 50 basic tools for civilization - tractors and plows and stuff. As long as the plans for them are under an Open Hardware license, we're interested in papers about them.
I tried this on a blog a while back, that is part of what technocrat.net was supposed to be for. What I found was that I was talking with the same 30 people all of the time. And there were maybe 3000 to 5000 regular readers at best.
There's also differentiation - I don't want this to be "just another blog".
And it seems that there is a history for technical journals being in print, and a more recent history of them being open publication. So, I am trying to do something that people who submit papers, and their bosses are used to. I have sometimes, working in academia, been asked to produce a list of my own publications. They seem to take the journal stuff more seriously than the blog stuff.
That made me smile too. In academic circles I keep getting called Dr. Perens, sorry no Ph.D. I'm also called "K6BP" a lot.