OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Get help, and assist others in with open source kits and running a business! Do not ask for legal advice or for consulting services in this forum, only general biz questions!

Moderators: adafruit_support_bill, adafruit

Forum rules
Get help, and assist others in with open source kits and running a business! Do not ask for legal advice or for consulting services in this forum, only general biz questions!
User avatar
macegr
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:46 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by macegr »

many people would love to claim their work(s) are "open source software" to get all the benefits of community, support, innovations from users - but if their software doesn't allow commercial use, it's not called open source software - same goes for hardware. it's something else, and that's fine.
This might be where a lot of the controversy is arising. I think that hardware designers feel quite simply that hardware just isn't software, and all the same rationale may not apply:

Software: Most open source software creators are not trying to sell their product.
Hardware: Almost all of the open source or open source wannabe creators are trying to sell their product, or at least that's true in the current context of open source hardware businesses.

Software: A large proportion of open source software is designed by several to many people, usually in widely varying levels of contribution, but equal level of risk (zero).
Hardware: Most kit/niche hardware business product are designed by one or very few people, and often involve long development and prototyping cycles for a non-zero cash outlay.

Software: The source IS the product. The idea being exchanged for free is the same as the item being exchanged for free.
Hardware: The source is a free idea for a item that has material cost and value.

Software: Distribution of both the idea and the product is essentially free.
Hardware: Distribution of the idea is free, but distribution of the product entails many logistical problems -- investments, physical space and handing, time consuming assembly.

Software: Everyone distributing open source is on equal footing. The product maintains value independent of the distribution channel. A large entity taking the sourcecode and redistributing it does zero harm to the creator.
Hardware: The playing field is wildly uneven for hardware production and distribution. A large entity with closer ties to production and less logistical and cost problems has potential to seriously harm the original creator financially. Unlike software, physical devices can be made in varying quality levels and shoddy quality can dilute the brand.

Based on all the above, can hardware really be treated exactly like software? I think there is a lot of pressure for hardware developers to be open source right now. It's considered the "right thing to do" and "better for your customers." It's possible that small hardware producers may eventually be vilified or ignored if they don't open source their designs. Obviously this is not adafruit's intention, as they have stated many times that OSHW is not for everyone. And I think that hardware developers should take a step back and look at their own situation. There are thousands of software companies out there who don't release the source for their commercial products; otherwise, what would they sell? Hardware developers should not feel forced by the community to release that information just because it's better for the community, via sacrifice. Self preservation is an instinct and shouldn't be completely ignored.

Yet I do feel pressure from the community and have in fact received demanding requests, and had at least one person publicly warn away customers because I don't have design files available. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling this pressure, and that's why you're seeing support in here for a non-commercial clause. There appears to be a danger that "OSHW" will become a badge like "Intel Inside", turning customers away from equally open-to-end-user alternatives merely through community parroting of the idea. Even if it's not the original intent, groups easily separate things into "good" and "bad" columns.
100+ people do not have any problem with the open source hardware definition, you should join the OSHW community and convince them that adding a non-commercial clause makes sense.
I think many people are casting in their support but don't necessarily agree with every part as-is. You can see explicit statements of that in the discussion pages on the OSHW wiki.

Perhaps the community will eventually decide that OSHW just isn't the same as OSS and shouldn't be treated identically. Regardless how the matter ends, as you've mentioned several times this really isn't the place to actually influence the outcome. It's been an interesting discussion though.

adafruit
 
Posts: 12151
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

macegr wrote:This might be where a lot of the controversy is arising. I think that hardware designers feel quite simply that hardware just isn't software, and all the same rationale may not apply
others may disagree, but it appears the 100+ people who signed the OSHW definition all seem to agree it's closer to how OSS is defined. have you joined in and offered alternative definitions and clauses?
macegr wrote:…can hardware really be treated exactly like software? I think there is a lot of pressure for hardware developers to be open source right now. It's considered the "right thing to do" and "better for your customers." It's possible that small hardware producers may eventually be vilified or ignored if they don't open source their designs. Obviously this is not adafruit's intention, as they have stated many times that OSHW is not for everyone. And I think that hardware developers should take a step back and look at their own situation. There are thousands of software companies out there who don't release the source for their commercial products; otherwise, what would they sell? Hardware developers should not feel forced by the community to release that information just because it's better for the community, via sacrifice. Self preservation is an instinct and shouldn't be completely ignored.
small hardware producers may eventually be vilified or ignored? "may" - so you're worried about something that hasn't happened, can you give specific examples?

macegr wrote:Yet I do feel pressure from the community and have in fact received demanding requests, and had at least one person publicly warn away customers because I don't have design files available. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling this pressure, and that's why you're seeing support in here for a non-commercial clause. There appears to be a danger that "OSHW" will become a badge like "Intel Inside", turning customers away from equally open-to-end-user alternatives merely through community parroting of the idea. Even if it's not the original intent, groups easily separate things into "good" and "bad" columns.
it sounds like you do not like customers asking for files for something they bought from you, they are expecting and wanting open source hardware and you do not want to provide it - that's your choice and you should do what's best for you and your company. you do not call it "open source" or "open source hardware" but you'll need to manage their expectations, likely because you are in the arduino ecosystem and they are open source hardware. people seem to think it would be "fair" for you give back in the same way the arduino ecosystem is giving value to you - we agree, we think it's better for customers and better for the world. you're making money from OSHW (arduino) - people hold us to a very high standard with what we do, they probably want the same from others.

that said, if the customers wants these files for the things they bought and you do not satisfy the demand, the customers will go elsewhere to others who do.

macegr wrote:I think many people are casting in their support but don't necessarily agree with every part as-is. You can see explicit statements of that in the discussion pages on the OSHW wiki.
if they didn't support it, why did they sign it? there were (and will be) many more discussions, but adding "non-commercial use allowed" clause has never been seriously considered, ever - by anyone who does OSHW. that said, if someone wants to convince 100+ people they should do that, but not here - we do not have any issues with the definition and we signed it.

http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/license/
macegr wrote:Perhaps the community will eventually decide that OSHW just isn't the same as OSS and shouldn't be treated identically. Regardless how the matter ends, as you've mentioned several times this really isn't the place to actually influence the outcome. It's been an interesting discussion though.
agreed :)

for anyone who wants to convince others of banning trademarks or adding a "non-commercial clause" - please do so and post links, we're interested in what they say - we are a tiny part of OSHW, it's bigger than us and we cannot make any changes (and do not need see any need to).

thanks-

User avatar
macegr
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:46 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by macegr »

Oh I'm not saying I don't like customers asking for design files, I actually believe releasing that information will help our business. I just don't want other people to feel they have to do it in order to be accepted. I don't want an atmosphere of segregation or exclusion to take place. I will admit I didn't like the case I mentioned where someone, not even a customer, warned other customers away because I didn't have design files available.

Now, after some more thought and discussions with my business partner, it may happen that we do release design files for some or all of our products. And again, based on discussion, maybe those files will be released under a light non commercial or more accurately non-production clause, maybe modified to allow it under some circumstances. In that case end users and hobbyists will have access to all the design information. I would certainly in that case be referring to the products informally as "open source" (little o, little m) or "open design" because that is the best way to describe it. The source is open. So I think an important task of the OSHW developers is to formalize the definition under a unique term, just as GNU GPL was. That will do a lot to reduce confusion about what OSHW actually means. "Oh it's THIS set of definitions they're using here."

adafruit
 
Posts: 12151
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

macegr wrote:Oh I'm not saying I don't like customers asking for design files, I actually believe releasing that information will help our business.
we agree, and from our experience (and being in the OSHW world since the start) - it seems to help other companies and their customers as well.
macegr wrote:I just don't want other people to feel they have to do it in order to be accepted. I don't want an atmosphere of segregation or exclusion to take place. I will admit I didn't like the case I mentioned where someone, not even a customer, warned other customers away because I didn't have design files available.
most people do *not* release files for their projects, most people do *not* do OSHW who design electronics - that's their choice. OSHW by its nature is inclusive *anyone* can do almost *anything* with the projects, this is why it's so appealing to many.

we had a non-customer demand that we do not post *our own files* we were puzzled by this and we didn't like that either (it didn't make any sense) but you cannot control what one random-non-customer does, more so if they are unreasonable and crazy.
macegr wrote:Now, after some more thought and discussions with my business partner, it may happen that we do release design files for some or all of our products. And again, based on discussion, maybe those files will be released under a light non commercial or more accurately non-production clause, maybe modified to allow it under some circumstances. In that case end users and hobbyists will have access to all the design information. I would certainly in that case be referring to the products informally as "open source" (little o, little m) or "open design" because that is the best way to describe it. The source is open.


that's great! it's not open source hardware and you're not calling it that, likely creative common n-c or something else. there are many licenses to choose from *or* make your own that works for you! some people release hardware and say "includes source code for personal use"... something like that.

a great example of doing what works *for you*.
macegr wrote:So I think an important task of the OSHW developers is to formalize the definition under a unique term, just as GNU GPL was. That will do a lot to reduce confusion about what OSHW actually means. "Oh it's THIS set of definitions they're using here."
they did and are:
http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/license/

it's the start, it's less than 30 days old - v1.0 coming soon, then licenses - we'll see what happens, join in and help :)

User avatar
macegr
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:46 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by macegr »

I think a lot more of the confusion would disappear if the OSHW writers and more of the community realized they are actually defining a parallel to "Free software" (capital F) licenses such as the GPL which does not permit restrictions on distribution. Open source is a different term and contains licenses that do have restrictions. Open Source Hardware was probably chosen because Free Hardware sounds confusing...but Free as in freedom is far more apt under the accepted OSHW definitions than Open is. I would say that OSHW is a perfect term if and only if some restrictions were allowed. I may actually bring this up with the appropriate community.

adafruit
 
Posts: 12151
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

macegr wrote:I would say that OSHW is a perfect term if and only if some restrictions were allowed. I may actually bring this up with the appropriate community.
just our opinion - we do not think anyone who does OSHW and has signed the def. will want to change the name of OSHW and/or add restrictions that would limit what you can do with OSHW but you should participate for sure! please report back what others say about this, we are interested! same goes for anyone else, if you have suggestions - join in, we are only a tiny voice among many who do OSHW.

User avatar
macegr
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:46 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by macegr »

Oh no I agree that changing the name would involve kicking and screaming. Especially after all the blog coverage etc. However, it's better to make a change like that before anyone's actually using it.

adafruit
 
Posts: 12151
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

macegr wrote:Oh no I agree that changing the name would involve kicking and screaming. Especially after all the blog coverage etc. However, it's better to make a change like that before anyone's actually using it.
kicking and screaming? that's an unfortunate thing to say - these are not children, they're business people, scientists and engineers - if you have valid and well-thought out suggestions they'll be considered and added. it's a great group of people that we've only experienced great things from, completely open to hearing all suggestions and opinions.

people are using the OSHW def. as it's been defined (now) for years - if something was named better, defined better and had better licenses it would & will be used.

pichenettes
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

To make things clear, a last thing: I have nothing against trademarks, I'm just saying it's an example of "restriction for protection" allowed by the definition. Some others are not. I find it unfair, but, well, 100% of the 100+ people who have signed this agree on it so it's hard to contest a 100% score.

I wish I had been in this 5 years ago to give some weight to my voice, but I just happened to start in electronics 12 months ago. Maybe, had I been in the business for 5 years, I would have been unable to think again from the point of view of small players getting started.
it sounds like you do not like customers asking for files for something they bought from you, they are expecting and wanting open source hardware and you do not want to provide it - that's your choice and you should do what's best for you and your company. you do not call it "open source" or "open source hardware" but you'll need to manage their expectations, likely because you are in the arduino ecosystem and they are open source hardware. people seem to think it would be "fair" for you give back in the same way the arduino ecosystem is giving value to you - we agree, we think it's better for customers and better for the world. you're making money from OSHW (arduino) - people hold us to a very high standard with what we do, they probably want the same from others. that said, if the customers wants these files for the things they bought and you do not satisfy the demand, the customers will go elsewhere to others who do.
"they are expecting and wanting open source hardware". Not sure. Macegr surely more data on this but I suspect they are "only" expecting files and the freedom to do whatever they want with them for a non-profit use. So something with a non-commercial restriction would achieve the same goal.

adafruit
 
Posts: 12151
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

pichenettes wrote:To make things clear, a last thing: I have nothing against trademarks, I'm just saying it's an example of "restriction for protection" allowed by the definition. Some others are not. I find it unfair, but, well, 100% of the 100+ people who have signed this agree on it so it's hard to contest a 100% score.
incorrect, you can make an arduino, just do not call it an arduino - this is not a "restriction for protection" - a trademark is something you say you do not have anything against, so what is the issue?

you can make an sell something identical to an arduino (many do!) just do not call it an arduino. as you also said 100% of the 100+ people who have signed this agree on it so it's hard to contest a 100% score - that said, this seems important to you - have you joined in and express this to anyone besides us in this thread? please report back, we're interested to hear the response.

have you contacted the arduino.cc team about this?

as far as "unfair" goes, it would be unfair for you to call something open source hardware when you restrict commercial use, you'd gain all the benefits of OSHW without allowing commercial use, luckily no one so far thinks this would be good for OSS or OSHW and so far it's not been part of this wonderful movement.

who knows, things can change - get involved and make your case, we're interested to hear the responses.

pichenettes wrote:I wish I had been in this 5 years ago to give some weight to my voice, but I just happened to start in electronics 12 months ago. Maybe, had I been in the business for 5 years, I would have been unable to think again from the point of view of small players getting started.
there are people who have "weighty voices" in OSHW who just started electronics less than 12 months ago - what is your excuse for not participating now? the OSHW def. is in draft, join in - this isn't the place for changes in the OSHW def.

if you review our presentations, links we've posted and articles - we're a small player compared to others - and there are smaller players than us - some of the most prolific OSHW folks only have one project. get involved if you think this for you :)
pichenettes wrote:"they are expecting and wanting open source hardware". Not sure. Macegr surely more data on this but I suspect they are "only" expecting files and the freedom to do whatever they want with them for a non-profit use. So something with a non-commercial restriction would achieve the same goal.
they are expecting the hardware they buy to be like the hardware in the ecosystem Macegr is selling his products in, even he says that! in fact, Macegr says the following:
macegr wrote:At the moment none of my products are open source, something that does bug me a bit since many of them play off the Arduino ecosystem.
if he feels that way, it's likely that his customers feel that way too. if more value is being taken out than being put in it's hard not to be "bugged" about that.

pichenettes
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

incorrect, you can make an arduino, just do not call it an arduino - this is not a "restriction for protection" - you can make an sell something identical to an arduino (many do!) just do not call it an arduino. as you also said 100% of the 100+ people who have signed this agree on it so it's hard to contest a 100% score - that said, this seems important to you - have you joined in and express this to anyone besides us in this thread? please report back, we're interested to hear the response.
This is a restriction for protection because an arduino-like board which is not called an arduino is of less value, from a marketing point of view, than an arduino called an arduino. You cannot create something identical to an Arduino. The physical object might be identical, but the market appeal, "searchability" of the project, is different if it doesn't come with the original name. People looking for an arduino board on Google will have harder time finding a clone.

In the particular case of the Arduino, OSHW compliance+trademark allows, but makes it harder, to create an object of equal market appeal. I have nothing against that, but you have to recognize that it is exactly the way things are: a restriction to preserve a competitive edge. It's quite obvious to me that this trademark thing is a very well calculated and very smart business move, which puts them in a situation that makes it more comfortable for them to allow some levels of freedom with their hardware. It's very great for them indeed.

adafruit
 
Posts: 12151
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

pichenettes wrote:This is a restriction for protection because an arduino-like board which is not called an arduino is of less value, from a marketing point of view, than an arduino called an arduino. You cannot create something identical to an Arduino.
incorrect, people can and do create hardware identical to the arduino - seeed has, farnell does, check ebay, many do. you simply cannot put their logo on it (arduino) - you can call it "arduino-compatible" if you want, some do. you cannot take firefox and call it =google(tm) browser= using the google logo and sell it or give it away, it's that simple. you know this.

again, have you contacted the arduino team about your concerns?

pichenettes wrote:The physical object might be identical, but the market appeal, "searchability" of the project, is different if it doesn't come with the original name. People looking for an arduino board on Google will have harder time finding a clone.
google, searchability? do you work for google?

we make an arduino-like "clone" called the boarduino, people find it just fine - people find the other arduino clones just fine too. what's the problem? why are you telling *us* this?

pichenettes wrote:In the particular case of the Arduino, OSHW compliance+trademark allows, but makes it harder, to create an object of equal market appeal. I have nothing against that, but you have to recognize that it is exactly the way things are: a restriction to preserve a competitive edge.
not true, many people and companies make arduino clones, they are thriving as well. no one has ever complained about arduino having a trademarked name besides you that we know of, but if and when you contact them they can likely tell you more, perhaps if there are enough of you with well-thought out arguments they will change their minds and not use a trademarked name on a product they make.

we do not understand why you are continuing to complain about arduino here when you should be posting in their forums at arduino.cc
pichenettes wrote:It's quite obvious to me that this trademark thing is a very well calculated and very smart business move, which puts them in a situation that makes it more comfortable for them to allow some levels of freedom with their hardware. It's very great for them indeed.
you should contact the arduino team, you could then learn about the history of the project, when the name was trademarked, why and how much they've given to the electronics community. to continue to post here without any facts and incorrect statements is BANNED, please post your trademark concerns in the arduino.cc forums.

pichenettes
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

No I don't work for Google, but it's a basic thing to think about the path people take to reach a product, and these days, a number of those paths intersect the web and Google - which also implies that a linguistic monopoly has a chance to turn into a market advantage. I suspect that people having heard about those funky microcontroller projects will look for "Arduino" on a search engine instead of "AVR development board". So yes, name matters.

I am not at all concerned about the Arduino being trademarked and that's why I am not posting on their forums. I am very concerned about you stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that a trademark is a way of putting a restriction on something to gain a competitive benefit, and that's why I am posting on your forum and not the Arduino's.

- Is Trademark a restriction? Yes.
- Is the trademark giving the Arduino an advantage? Yes, because their main market segment are people who have an idea about what an "Arduino" is, but not what an "AVR development board with FTDI chip and bootloader allowing firmware update through USB" is.

A refreshing read:
http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaB ... 84102866/0

Some interesting bits:
- At its infancy, the Arduino project was nc and much more secretive than the standards you seem to expect. It's interesting to see its owners went through exactly the same kind of quandary small players are facing - difficulties you are absolutely blind to.
- Key project contributors acknowledge that trademark is a way of protecting themselves against people trying to make a "quick buck"
- Some people were actually concerned about the trademark status being a form of overprotection: To make an "Arduino" you need a design, the production information and permission to use the name. Only one of those things is available; the others are not".

So end of the story for me.

adafruit
 
Posts: 12151
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

pichenettes wrote:No I don't work for Google, but it's a basic thing to think about the path people take to reach a product, and these days, a number of those paths intersect the web and Google - which also implies that a linguistic monopoly has a chance to turn into a market advantage. I suspect that people having heard about those funky microcontroller projects will look for "Arduino" on a search engine instead of "AVR development board". So yes, name matters.
do you have any evidence of this? we've never heard anyone have trouble finding an arudino clone if they wanted one.

again, please post your *arduino trademark* concerns in the arduino.cc forums.
pichenettes wrote:I am not at all concerned about the Arduino being trademarked and that's why I am not posting on their forums. I am very concerned about you stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that a trademark is a way of putting a restriction on something to gain a competitive benefit, and that's why I am posting on your forum and not the Arduino's.
a trademark is not a way of putting a restriction on something to gain a competitive benefit for open source hardware, anyone can make an arduino they just cannot use the logo (arduino) on the board, it's that simple. many do, many will - everyone is thriving.
pichenettes wrote: - Is Trademark a restriction? Yes.
not for open source hardware, anyone can make an arduino they just cannot use the logo (arduino) on the board. no one can sell firefox and call it firefox, anyone can make identical hardware and browsers if the wanted.
pichenettes wrote: - Is the trademark giving the Arduino an advantage? Yes, because their main market segment are people who have an idea about what an "Arduino" is, but not what an "AVR development board with FTDI chip and bootloader allowing firmware update through USB" is.
no, some people have called their project / clone "AVR development board with FTDI chip and bootloader" also they say arduino- compatible. so far no one has complained but you that we know of.

pichenettes wrote: A refreshing read:
http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaB ... 84102866/0
you are quoting things from 3 years ago and the project has evolved and the team actually changed their minds about *many things* you neglected to put that part in of course. in fact, here's a quote from the arduino team that *you left out*
arduino team wrote: "I do want to clarify one point about the licenses, however. The files were originally released under the CC share-alike, non-commercial license. After some internal discussion, we came around to the FSF and OSI point-of-view and dropped the non-commercial restriction. Apparently, we forgot to update the page for the single-sided serial board. That was an oversight that I've just fixed. "
and that's that!
pichenettes wrote: So end of the story for me.
we agree, you're 100% wrong about this (like the OSHW files and many other things) but you made it very easy for us to prove this with a simple quote from the *arduino.cc forums* from the *arduino.cc* team directly!

read up on the arduino project and/or contact them before you say (more) things that are not accurate. please report back how it goes and we're looking forward to seeing what changes you can bring to OSHW if they gain traction.

cheers,
adafruit

pichenettes
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

do you have any evidence of this? we've never heard anyone have trouble finding an arudino clone if they wanted one.
Do you have data on the following point: Which fraction of the people vaguely knowing what an Arduino is are buying a clone vs the original hardware?
If you are so confident that renaming a "Boarduino" an "Arduino breadboard edition" would have absolutely no impact on its sales, run a survey to see why people bought the arduino board they have. We'll see if people buying Duemilanoves are buying it because it came with the name they heard of (Arduino) or because they really liked the blue color and italy map.
again, please post your *arduino trademark* concerns in the arduino.cc forums.
I have posted my concerns on the arduino.cc forums, here's the link: (I don't have any concern at all with Arduino, they have a solid marketing strategy and are doing the right thing, with the right tool, to protect their project)
pichenettes wrote: - Is Trademark a restriction? Yes.
no, anyone can make an arduino they just cannot use the logo (arduino) on the board. no one can sell firefox and call it firefox, anyone can make identical hardware and browsers if the wanted.
So "no one can do X" but it's not a restriction?
some people have called their project / clone "AVR development board with FTDI chip and bootloader" also they say arduino- compatible. so far no one has complained but you that we know of.
You won't have a point unless you'll have opened a new e-commerce site under a new name, and put there two products on sale : an "Arduino compatible board" and a Duemilanove. Look at sales numbers. If you're so confident that selling something under the original name is not a trade advantage, why don't run the experiment? You could already give some numbers about what you sell the most: your clones or the original boards. The population is biased, but that would be an interesting start.
you are quoting things from 3 years ago and the project has evolved and the team actually changed their minds about *many things* you neglected to put that part in of course. in fact, here's a quote from the arduino team that *you left out*
The fact that these are 3 years old doesn't invalidate the arguments that: 1/ trademark is a concern to some people ; 2/ a -nc license is a natural thing to do for people who have started a project.
and that's that! what do you have to say about that now?
That it invalidates, in no way, the point that "nc" was the first thing they did because that is an easier thing to accept for people starting a project. The fact that the thread is 3 years old is indeed a part of my argument: it matters more to me what they were thinking when they were in a position I can relate to.
we agree, you're 100% wrong, but you made it very easy for us to prove this with a simple quote from the *arduino.cc forums* from the *arduino.cc* team directly!
We don't agree, and false can imply anything :) None of us is right or wrong unless you'll show me hard data about the impact on sales of labelling something "Arduino" vs "XXXuino (arduino compatible)". If you show me that they sell equally well, I'll be happy to recognize that "owning" the original name is not an advantage.

You're in a position to get this data, I am not, and the Arduino people are not. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I think this would be a great data point. Until then we're just repeating the same thing over and over, which is not very constructive.

Now waiting for data...

Locked
Forum rules
Get help, and assist others in with open source kits and running a business! Do not ask for legal advice or for consulting services in this forum, only general biz questions!

Return to “Kitbiz”