The thing you're missing is how to provide the incentive to development. Although it is not monetary, BSD developers do reap benefits from their work. In contrast, hardware of the sort I'm making requires very expensive tools and $2000/turn every time you fix a bug. So, those are strong negative economic incentives and you need to have positive incentives that match them. The BSD model would not provide them.
I've succeeded in reaping the economic incentives of Open Source development without having to sell t-shirts.
For Open Hardware to work, the same economic incentives need to work, and they either need to be supported by licensing or we need another way to do it.
If you're not interested in fixing the business model, do please stay out of the discussion.
If you can code it in VHDL, it's really software. There's a big analog world out there that you still need to master to make receivers, and also good transmitters even if Raspberry Pi folks have coded the modern equivalent of spark transmission. Even if you get the signal into the digital domain as quickly as possible, the digital part can still swamp the analog one with noise if you're not careful. And it's really expensive to deal with. What would be a recompile for VHDL becomes a $2000 board turn. So, the incentives need to be different, at the very least those you would get with an effective GPL. But copyright doesn't support that on hardware.
If all you are making is a gate-array program, you have the low cost-of-entry of Open Source Software, and the ability to fix a bug with a simple recompile. Gate array kits for lower than $50 are available.
Contrast the cost of entry to making powerful, multi-band, analog RF receivers and transmitters. I need to have a spectrum analyzer and a vector network analyzer on hand, two precise frequency generators, etc. Check the prices on eBay. Make sure the equipment you buy has a noise floor lower than 120 dB and goes to at least 2 GHz.
When I fix a bug, it's not just a recompile. I have to fast-turn fabricate a 6-layer PCB with 500 surface-mount parts.
The class of problems we are currently dealing with are that the schematics are perfectly valid, but we must re-lay-out to reduce noise in the receiver. That's a $2000 board turn every time we try to fix it.
So, the incentives need to support that sort of outlay.
In Europe, on the other hand, there was no overarching authority
So, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, and not to be inward looking!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, and not to have over-reaching authority!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, not to have over-reaching authority, and to actively pursue overseas markets!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, not to have over-reaching authority, to actively pursue overseas markets, and to have the advantage of geography that encourages separatism rather than centralism!
My ADD hasn't reduced my literacy skills or made me less effective as an evangelist or business person. Perhaps the opposite, actually. I do, however, hire people to do paperwork. Neurotypical people are, in general, surprisingly cheap to hire.
When I fix a hardware bug, it's about $2000 for fast-turn fabrication of a 6-layer board with 500 surface-mount components. With software, you just recompile.
So there really are fundamental differences and the incentives have to be different.
The BSD license can still provide sufficient incentives for people to develop software, even if they aren't monetary. But when you have a bug in BSD software, you just recompile. I have perfectly valid schematics that as laid out are too noisy to make a good receiver. Rather than just recompile, I spend about $2000 for fast-turn fabrication of a 6-layer PCB with 500 surface-mount components. This is a strong negative monetary incentive unlike one that would apply to fixing bugs in BSD software.
No, not really. Open Source works because there is a very low barrier to entry since the tools other than a general purpose compute are free, there is no cost of fabrication, there are economic incentives for developers even when they aren't monetary, and developers have terms available that can keep it free rather than making it a no-terms gift to big companies and child-labor manufacturers. Open Hardware licensing doesn't work to support those same terms, and the incentives are different because of the financial outlay for tools, fabrication, and facilities is larger (about $50K so far in my case) and the potential for distributed collaboration to work is lower (but we might be able to fix that for some kinds of circuits).
Consider the cost of rapid-turning a 6-layer analog PCB with 500 components to test bug fixes. I can't get below about $2000/turn. I have perfectly valid schematics that make too much noise for a good receiver as laid out, etc., so that needs board turns to fix. With Open Source software, I just recompile. So there are fundamental differences.
I'd rather have information be under share-and-share-alike terms than to place it in the public domain. Making no-restrictions gifts to big companies and child-labor manufacturers is silly. My assertion is that it's more "Free" when the terms keep it free.
If I am going to put in 4 years and $50K expenses, it has to be share-and-share-alike, as in the GPL, rather than a gift with no restrictions to every big company and Chinese manufacturer.
The problem is that GPL-like terms don't work directly because copyright can't be asserted on schematics.
I didn't use FSF's "Three Freedoms" (the fourth came later) definition of Free Software in writing the Open Source Definition (then the DFSG, as you say). The main reason is that it wasn't online, online being a rather primitive thing at the time. The odd thing is that I sent my document to Richard and his reply was "this is a good definition of Free Software" without pointing out that he had previously written one.
We can get away with not using a shrink-wrap contract on software because copyright works on software and starts with all-rights-reserved, so we have a right that other people will need the license for if they are not to have the work as all-rights-reserved.
Copyright doesn't work on schematics and anything that is entirely functional. See the Wikipedia article on Computer Associates Inc. v. Altai for an explanation.
Because there is also software in the package, I might not need a time-of-purchase or shrinkwrap contract if I couple terms about the hardware to the right to run some of the software. But I'm not sure. Because we sell online, we can get consent before purchase and a contract given at that time might be best. I'm still thinking about it.
I hear all too much of this particular comment. I've never known Richard to be unshowered or dirty. Richard is not neurotypical and does his best to cope with that fact. It's not his fault.
No, an architect's work can be copyrighted because it is artistic in nature, even if the underlying function of a home is functional. The artist, however, can not copyright the functional elements, for example he can not copyright the concept of a bedroom and prevent others from making one. He could, however, patent the function of a new room.
Schematics are judged to be entirely functional and you can't successfully assert copyright on them.
You can also only copyright some parts of software that are artistic rather than functional, see the Wikipedia page on Computer Associates Inc. vs. Altai for an explanation.
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.
There was no shortage of local computer tech business the last time I spoke there. It's going to be difficult for big tech companies to build factories there, nobody wants them to do that, not even the people who would get jobs out of it. Nor do I blame them.
Diamond's thesis is a good story, but not generally accepted by scientists or historians. It doesn't explain some simple things, the most important of which is why didn't the Chinese conquer us all?
They had explosives, a well-developed written language, mathematics, accounting, organization, they'd conquered widely and went through the germ part, they could smelt metals and create intricate devices.
I walked up there once. It's only a gravel road for the last part, so most of the automobiles park and people walk the rest of the way. It was quiet and peaceful. There were few people. It was indeed difficult to breathe.
It's really a matter of one person's religion against the others. I was really disappointed that a few years ago, the descendants of pre-European indigenous people caused the Emeryville Shellmound to be re-buried under a shopping mall parking lot rather than allow a resumption of archaeology. My religion stood for learning more about the people before us through archaeology, as it stands for exploring space through observation. But I didn't have the same rights that they had.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you'd rather hear from the horse's mouth than the other end of the horse?
Slashdot wasn't always this bad. Many smart people seem to have absconded and thus the S/N ratio is much higher now.
The thing you're missing is how to provide the incentive to development. Although it is not monetary, BSD developers do reap benefits from their work. In contrast, hardware of the sort I'm making requires very expensive tools and $2000/turn every time you fix a bug. So, those are strong negative economic incentives and you need to have positive incentives that match them. The BSD model would not provide them.
I've succeeded in reaping the economic incentives of Open Source development without having to sell t-shirts.
For Open Hardware to work, the same economic incentives need to work, and they either need to be supported by licensing or we need another way to do it.
If you're not interested in fixing the business model, do please stay out of the discussion.
If you can code it in VHDL, it's really software. There's a big analog world out there that you still need to master to make receivers, and also good transmitters even if Raspberry Pi folks have coded the modern equivalent of spark transmission. Even if you get the signal into the digital domain as quickly as possible, the digital part can still swamp the analog one with noise if you're not careful. And it's really expensive to deal with. What would be a recompile for VHDL becomes a $2000 board turn. So, the incentives need to be different, at the very least those you would get with an effective GPL. But copyright doesn't support that on hardware.
If all you are making is a gate-array program, you have the low cost-of-entry of Open Source Software, and the ability to fix a bug with a simple recompile. Gate array kits for lower than $50 are available.
Contrast the cost of entry to making powerful, multi-band, analog RF receivers and transmitters. I need to have a spectrum analyzer and a vector network analyzer on hand, two precise frequency generators, etc. Check the prices on eBay. Make sure the equipment you buy has a noise floor lower than 120 dB and goes to at least 2 GHz.
When I fix a bug, it's not just a recompile. I have to fast-turn fabricate a 6-layer PCB with 500 surface-mount parts.
The class of problems we are currently dealing with are that the schematics are perfectly valid, but we must re-lay-out to reduce noise in the receiver. That's a $2000 board turn every time we try to fix it.
So, the incentives need to support that sort of outlay.
So, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, and not to be inward looking!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, and not to have over-reaching authority!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, not to have over-reaching authority, and to actively pursue overseas markets!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, not to have over-reaching authority, to actively pursue overseas markets, and to have the advantage of geography that encourages separatism rather than centralism!
...
The slides are online. The Courage Kenny Handiham program would probably provide a Morse code form of them if you asked :-)
My ADD hasn't reduced my literacy skills or made me less effective as an evangelist or business person. Perhaps the opposite, actually. I do, however, hire people to do paperwork. Neurotypical people are, in general, surprisingly cheap to hire.
When I fix a hardware bug, it's about $2000 for fast-turn fabrication of a 6-layer board with 500 surface-mount components. With software, you just recompile.
So there really are fundamental differences and the incentives have to be different.
The BSD license can still provide sufficient incentives for people to develop software, even if they aren't monetary. But when you have a bug in BSD software, you just recompile. I have perfectly valid schematics that as laid out are too noisy to make a good receiver. Rather than just recompile, I spend about $2000 for fast-turn fabrication of a 6-layer PCB with 500 surface-mount components. This is a strong negative monetary incentive unlike one that would apply to fixing bugs in BSD software.
So, we have to get the incentives right.
No, not really. Open Source works because there is a very low barrier to entry since the tools other than a general purpose compute are free, there is no cost of fabrication, there are economic incentives for developers even when they aren't monetary, and developers have terms available that can keep it free rather than making it a no-terms gift to big companies and child-labor manufacturers. Open Hardware licensing doesn't work to support those same terms, and the incentives are different because of the financial outlay for tools, fabrication, and facilities is larger (about $50K so far in my case) and the potential for distributed collaboration to work is lower (but we might be able to fix that for some kinds of circuits).
Consider the cost of rapid-turning a 6-layer analog PCB with 500 components to test bug fixes. I can't get below about $2000/turn. I have perfectly valid schematics that make too much noise for a good receiver as laid out, etc., so that needs board turns to fix. With Open Source software, I just recompile. So there are fundamental differences.
I'd rather have information be under share-and-share-alike terms than to place it in the public domain. Making no-restrictions gifts to big companies and child-labor manufacturers is silly. My assertion is that it's more "Free" when the terms keep it free.
Open doesn't mean public domain.
If I am going to put in 4 years and $50K expenses, it has to be share-and-share-alike, as in the GPL, rather than a gift with no restrictions to every big company and Chinese manufacturer.
The problem is that GPL-like terms don't work directly because copyright can't be asserted on schematics.
I didn't use FSF's "Three Freedoms" (the fourth came later) definition of Free Software in writing the Open Source Definition (then the DFSG, as you say). The main reason is that it wasn't online, online being a rather primitive thing at the time. The odd thing is that I sent my document to Richard and his reply was "this is a good definition of Free Software" without pointing out that he had previously written one.
We can get away with not using a shrink-wrap contract on software because copyright works on software and starts with all-rights-reserved, so we have a right that other people will need the license for if they are not to have the work as all-rights-reserved.
Copyright doesn't work on schematics and anything that is entirely functional. See the Wikipedia article on Computer Associates Inc. v. Altai for an explanation.
Because there is also software in the package, I might not need a time-of-purchase or shrinkwrap contract if I couple terms about the hardware to the right to run some of the software. But I'm not sure. Because we sell online, we can get consent before purchase and a contract given at that time might be best. I'm still thinking about it.
I hear all too much of this particular comment. I've never known Richard to be unshowered or dirty. Richard is not neurotypical and does his best to cope with that fact. It's not his fault.
No, an architect's work can be copyrighted because it is artistic in nature, even if the underlying function of a home is functional. The artist, however, can not copyright the functional elements, for example he can not copyright the concept of a bedroom and prevent others from making one. He could, however, patent the function of a new room.
Schematics are judged to be entirely functional and you can't successfully assert copyright on them.
You can also only copyright some parts of software that are artistic rather than functional, see the Wikipedia page on Computer Associates Inc. vs. Altai for an explanation.
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.
Not sure what you're getting at, but it's not a summary of my talk.
Here are the slides..
Beach access laws succeed against multi-billion-dollar venture capitalists here in California.
There was no shortage of local computer tech business the last time I spoke there. It's going to be difficult for big tech companies to build factories there, nobody wants them to do that, not even the people who would get jobs out of it. Nor do I blame them.
Diamond's thesis is a good story, but not generally accepted by scientists or historians. It doesn't explain some simple things, the most important of which is why didn't the Chinese conquer us all?
They had explosives, a well-developed written language, mathematics, accounting, organization, they'd conquered widely and went through the germ part, they could smelt metals and create intricate devices.
Why not them, Jared?
I walked up there once. It's only a gravel road for the last part, so most of the automobiles park and people walk the rest of the way. It was quiet and peaceful. There were few people. It was indeed difficult to breathe.
It's really a matter of one person's religion against the others. I was really disappointed that a few years ago, the descendants of pre-European indigenous people caused the Emeryville Shellmound to be re-buried under a shopping mall parking lot rather than allow a resumption of archaeology. My religion stood for learning more about the people before us through archaeology, as it stands for exploring space through observation. But I didn't have the same rights that they had.