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 »

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. Half the reason could be interpreted as laziness, just wanting to build and sell devices rather than manage design files and field additional questions from people trying to make their own version. The other half is some reluctance to make it too easy for someone to mass produce what we build. Sure...nothing we make is very complicated, and could be easily reversed. But it's a big leap to just put the Eagle files out there and say "Here ya go, anyone." I wouldn't really mind so much someone mass-duplicating my efforts if they at least had to route a simple PCB on their own.

So, to me, Creative Commons share-alike, attribution, non-commercial is pretty attractive. Dave at EEVblog makes a similar case for a non-commercial license, while noting that it mainly makes business-minded people feel better since China will copy anything regardless of the license.

While not necessarily wanting to buy completely into the hardliner OSHW agenda yet, I do agree that more design transparency is a good thing for the tiny hobbyist market in which we're participating. We will likely release PDF schematics of our hardware, which in some interpretations could be considered "source" while the PCB layout and physical device could be considered "compiled" versions of the source. Others will consider the layout files to be source too...certainly if someone wants to make a small change to a device, completely re-routing a PCB is a large barrier, akin to leaving out parts of the sourcecode to a software project.

We'll definitely dip a toe into OSHW soon, it's just sometimes hard to let go and depend on ongoing innovation (especially when you're short on time!).

Selling hardware that you also open-source pretty much forces you to continually innovate, update, and release new products. That is a little scary, but also a good thing which might just be the direction you need to go anyway to succeed.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

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.
that's great, if you're making products in the arduino space it seems fair to put back value in.

if you look around all the great things you use like linux, firefox, apache - all the things we all use to run businesses and make money - we use these for free - imagine if they decided not to allow commercial use and for others to make amazing companies - we think a lot of people will discover the same with hardware and if they're in the world of OSHW making profits from it, they'll also release their works under the same license - it's the right thing to do.
macegr wrote: The other half is some reluctance to make it too easy for someone to mass produce what we build. Sure...nothing we make is very complicated, and could be easily reversed. But it's a big leap to just put the Eagle files out there and say "Here ya go, anyone." I wouldn't really mind so much someone mass-duplicating my efforts if they at least had to route a simple PCB on their own.
an eagle file isn't going to stop anyone from mass producing anything if they want to. it's safe to say we've been "cloned" more than anyone here, it has not been "bad" for us.
macegr wrote:So, to me, Creative Commons share-alike, attribution, non-commercial is pretty attractive. Dave at EEVblog makes a similar case for a non-commercial license, while noting that it mainly makes business-minded people feel better since China will copy anything regardless of the license.
what projects has dave released under a non-commercial license, would like to check them out...
macegr wrote:While not necessarily wanting to buy completely into the hardliner OSHW agenda yet,
what is the hardliner OSHW agenda?
macegr wrote: I do agree that more design transparency is a good thing for the tiny hobbyist market in which we're participating. We will likely release PDF schematics of our hardware, which in some interpretations could be considered "source" while the PCB layout and physical device could be considered "compiled" versions of the source. Others will consider the layout files to be source too...certainly if someone wants to make a small change to a device, completely re-routing a PCB is a large barrier, akin to leaving out parts of the sourcecode to a software project.
that's cool, great first steps - better for your customers, others and the world.
macegr wrote:We'll definitely dip a toe into OSHW soon, it's just sometimes hard to let go and depend on ongoing innovation (especially when you're short on time!). Selling hardware that you also open-source pretty much forces you to continually innovate, update, and release new products. That is a little scary, but also a good thing which might just be the direction you need to go anyway to succeed.
this is why the human species is thriving. continually needing to innovate, update, and release "new products" - otherwise, what's the point of being alive? that said, patents can give you a monopoly for awhile if that's what you really want. some companies try to make it illegal to compete with them, because as you said - it's a little scary out there.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by macegr »

By "hardline" I probably mean those who might choose open source for philosophical reasons over business reasons. Which is fine...there are a lot of community driven projects out there doing good things. The whole 3D printer sector is being revolutionized because of RepRap, for example. And some people are doing very well taking those concepts and commercializing them.

I would say it's WAY easier to start as an open source creator and move into business with those concepts, than it is to go the other direction. There are entire industries based around the concept of not leaking the tiniest scrap of IP. Companies who sand off part numbers and build in expiration dates. Not only is the hardware closed, they locked it and threw away the key.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

macegr wrote:By "hardline" I probably mean those who might choose open source for philosophical reasons over business reasons. Which is fine...there are a lot of community driven projects out there doing good things. The whole 3D printer sector is being revolutionized because of RepRap, for example. And some people are doing very well taking those concepts and commercializing them.
it's very possible to choose for open source for philosophical reasons *and* business reasons. it's a good cause and a good business. like the reprap, makerbot is a great example they are OSHW and they're a great business - we would say they're a great cause too, giving back as much (or more) than they are taking.

so far we haven't heard someone going out of business they chose open source hardware for philosophical reasons over business reasons. we can't speak for everyone who does OSHW, but we're not a non-profit - we enjoying making great products for great customers and sharing the information - we also like eating and paying the bills.
macegr wrote:I would say it's WAY easier to start as an open source creator and move into business with those concepts, than it is to go the other direction. There are entire industries based around the concept of not leaking the tiniest scrap of IP. Companies who sand off part numbers and build in expiration dates. Not only is the hardware closed, they locked it and threw away the key.
it's very easy, thanks to others. stand on the shoulder of giants, etc, etc. it's great to make things based on other's work who *want you to do the same* - if you're in the OSS/OSHW world we think the reason it's "WAY easier to start as an open source creator and move into business with those concepts, than it is to go the other direction" is because the people and companies in OSHW are looking to make the world a better place, making easy for others have businesses and share valuable information. we're hoping more people join in.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

if you look around all the great things you use like linux, firefox, apache - all the things we all use to run businesses and make money - we use these for free - imagine if they decided not to allow commercial use and for others to make amazing companies
We're not talking here about preventing commercial *use* of the hardware - we're talking about commercial production of it, or its reuse as a component in a commercial product. FOS software explicitly prevents some of those. For example, LGPL software cannot be statically linked into a commercial product. So it's not unreasonable, especially for people used to open-source software, to expect the same thing from an open-source hardware license.

I don't quite understand adafruit's attitude on this topic, especially coming from a company which seems to foster creativity and sharing of information among hobbyists. If the goal is to increase the amount of available information and to share the joy of electronics, one should support the efforts of people wanting to publish stuff while doing what they can to protect themselves and keep themselves afloat. What if what they have to do to stay afloat and continue building new things is to prevent more experienced competitors to take their product out before they do? What's better: a well-documented CC'ed project with a restrictive clause on commercialization, or no project at all?

I wouldn't mind switching from cc-by-nc-sa+GPL to a licence following the OSHW specs and plan to do so when I'll have all my development expenses recovered, and will have scaled big enough to be able to handle at least the "core" of my customer base while making enough benefits to plan for new products. Meanwhile, I'm doing my best to release quality information, design files, analyses and code about my project, and I clearly don't appreciate being put in the same category as the people who don't give a **** [removed] about publishing anything about their designs and products. I also personally feel - but it's a very personal opinion - that unreadable firmware code or complex schematics that do not come with an analysis or a design log are as unhelpful as compiled computer code without source, and are hurting the philosophy of open source at least as strongly as putting a restriction on the commercial scope of the project. Doing no effort to expose the reasoning and computations behind a schematics, or keeping the code too complex to be understood and modified is a way of trying to cover your ass by keeping some IP for you. Arduino's main asset is no longer their cute dev boards or their AVR library, it's the name - which is incidentally what they are restrictive about - again covering their ass. People seem to have different strategies of protecting themselves depending on how big they are (keeping the inner working of their code or circuit secret while pretending to be open about it with published schematics ; restricting the use of the name that made the product popular ; preventing commercial use during a "ramp up" phase). I don't understand why two of those kinds of restrictions are kosher according to the OSHW definition, while one of them is not.

I don't buy the "dozens of company thriving" argument either. It doesn't prove anything - it's easy to do what the OSHW definition describes when you already have a head start - by having the production/distribution infrastructure in place, being the first in a market, or both. Contrary to what is happening in software, designing something itself is not the most important part of the effort. Take the list of the people who have approved the OSHW docs. Would they have approved it at the time they were starting their business and had a tiny production/distribution infrastructure compared to their competitors?

All in all, I've come back to this thread by accident and am surprised by the amount of dissing towards people who do their best to release stuff. While they do not adhere to the OSHW definition, some people with equally high ideals about sharing and the transparency of information are out there, and dismissing their effort is not fair game. I understand that from your point of view such efforts can now longer be called "open source hardware", but it's sad that by taking away this denomination from them, they will end up on the same side of the fence as the people with no consideration towards sharing stuff (in my domain, audio, there are simply too many of them). I hope that the definition will be enlarged or at least that another term will be found ("transparent hardware"?, "explained hardware?").

I think you should be in a position to help people make the transition to an OSHW-like licence - rather than telling them "if you don't get it it's not for you". You have the right size and iconic status to make things happen. One suggestion would be to push something like the "Creator Endorsed" logo. If people were used to see a logo indicating that a "clone" manufacturer pays royalty to the original designer this would help:
- show designers that there are good guys in the industry too, and help them pinpoint the good guys who are selling clones while supporting the original designers. For now, the statistics about who pays royalties to who is totally hidden (shouldn't transparency be the ultimate goal?).
- raise awareness among customers that some clone makers are nicer than others. It would be much easier then for small players to know that people are paying a bit more attention to the issue of royalties redistribution.

Last but not least: online stores like yours should clearly indicate which kits/products are open source (maybe a small 3 checkmarks logo: schematics/layout available ; design documentation available ; OSHW def compliant). Indeed, it seems that some of your products are not.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

pichenettes wrote:We're not talking here about preventing commercial *use* of the hardware - we're talking about commercial production of it, or its reuse as a component in a commercial product. FOS software explicitly prevents some of those. For example, LGPL software cannot be statically linked into a commercial product. So it's not unreasonable, especially for people used to open-source software, to expect the same thing from an open-source hardware license.
an argument could always be made that commercial use and commercial production are the same thing when it comes to commercial hardware - if you can't sell a device you make, there's not much more than you can do in a commercial capacity - same things goes for linux, apache, etc. if you can't make money from using it, selling it, supporting it and improving it - it's a dead end (for commercial use). "commercial production" is hard to avoid with hardware, by it's nature you make many for many reasons - cost is just one of them.
pichenettes wrote:I don't quite understand adafruit's attitude on this topic, especially coming from a company which seems to foster creativity and sharing of information among hobbyists. If the goal is to increase the amount of available information and to share the joy of electronics, one should support the efforts of people wanting to publish stuff while doing what they can to protect themselves and keep themselves afloat. What if what they have to do to stay afloat and continue building new things is to prevent more experienced competitors to take their product out before they do? What's better: a well-documented CC'ed project with a restrictive clause on commercialization, or no project at all?
people should choose the license that works for them, if they want a CC'ed project with a restrictive clause on commercialization - great, just do not call it "open source" or "open source hardware". we think there are many ways to release hardware, open source hardware isn't for everyone and does not fit everyone's needs.
pichenettes wrote:I wouldn't mind switching from cc-by-nc-sa+GPL to a licence following the OSHW specs and plan to do so when I'll have all my development expenses recovered, and will have scaled big enough to be able to handle at least the "core" of my customer base while making enough benefits to plan for new products.
that sounds like a great thing for you and your project, it would not be fair to call it "open source hardware" - calling it as you did - "cc-by-nc-sa+GPL" sounds perfectly accurate - why is there an issue here? you can always make it open source hardware later as you said.

we're assuming it's your project:
http://github.com/pichenettes/shruti1

looks interesting! maybe OSHW isn't a match for this, maybe it is - we are not here to convince you to change what is right for you.
pichenettes wrote:Meanwhile, I'm doing my best to release quality information, design files, analyses and code about my project, and I clearly don't appreciate being put in the same category as the people who don't give a **** [removed] about publishing anything about their designs and products.
who specifically has said that? can you post links and specific quotes by specific people? also, do not curse in the forums, we've edited out - we try to keep a positive tone here - thanks.
pichenettes wrote:I also personally feel - but it's a very personal opinion - that unreadable firmware code or complex schematics that do not come with an analysis or a design log are as unhelpful as compiled computer code without source, and are hurting the philosophy of open source at least as strongly as putting a restriction on the commercial scope of the project. Doing no effort to expose the reasoning and computations behind a schematics, or keeping the code too complex to be understood and modified is a way of trying to cover your ass by keeping some IP for you.
that's an interesting opinion. what examples can you point to of *open source hardware* that is too complex to be understood and modified is a way of trying to "cover your ass" by keeping some IP? names and links, specifics.
pichenettes wrote:Arduino's main asset is no longer their cute dev boards or their AVR library, it's the name - which is incidentally what they are restrictive about - again covering their ass.
it's their trademarked name, it's theirs they're doing exactly what they should do. anyone can (and does) make identical boards to the arduino, they just do not call them arduino. farnell recently did the same, it's identical besides the name. these are trademarks - this has never been an issue ever for anyone in OSHW that we know of. do you work for a business? is their name trademarked? it probably is, if you're lucky you may also work for a company that creates open source software and while the code is free to use, that doesn't mean anyone can use the company's name.

pichenettes wrote:People seem to have different strategies of protecting themselves depending on how big they are (keeping the inner working of their code or circuit secret while pretending to be open about it with published schematics ; restricting the use of the name that made the product popular ; preventing commercial use during a "ramp up" phase). I don't understand why two of those kinds of restrictions are kosher according to the OSHW definition, while one of them is not.
really? it's a trademark, they're asking you not to use the same name - just like every other business in the world, not using the same name is part of open source software too. you can make and sell a firefox on your own, you just cannot call it firefox - same for linux. why is this a problem for you?

who specifically is "keeping the inner working of their code or circuit secret while pretending to be open about it with published schematics" specific names and links please.
pichenettes wrote:I don't buy the "dozens of company thriving" argument either. It doesn't prove anything - it's easy to do what the OSHW definition describes when you already have a head start - by having the production/distribution infrastructure in place, being the first in a market, or both.
make good products and sell them at fair prices and offer good support. adafruit wasn't first in market, there are many competitors - and many more each month. dozens of companies thriving proves open source hardware works for some. it's not easy, it's a struggle every single day - first to market means nothing, a head start means nothing. who would have thought arduino would be so popular 5 years ago? PIC / BASIC stamp was literally embedded everywhere. google was not the first search engine... apple was not the first cell phone company... everyone can and will be displaced.
pichenettes wrote:Contrary to what is happening in software, designing something itself is not the most important part of the effort. Take the list of the people who have approved the OSHW docs. Would they have approved it at the time they were starting their business and had a tiny production/distribution infrastructure compared to their competitors?
yes. adafruit would have and did from the start, and we're fairly certain most/all of the others would have. we are still have a "tiny production/distribution infrastructure" compared to our competitors.
pichenettes wrote:All in all, I've come back to this thread by accident and am surprised by the amount of dissing towards people who do their best to release stuff.
dissing? can you give specific examples, names and links?
pichenettes wrote:While they do not adhere to the OSHW definition, some people with equally high ideals about sharing and the transparency of information are out there, and dismissing their effort is not fair game.
what is an example of dismissing their efforts? there are different licenses for everyone, open source hardware simply isn't the right match for everyone.
pichenettes wrote: I understand that from your point of view such efforts can now longer be called "open source hardware", but it's sad that by taking away this denomination from them, they will end up on the same side of the fence as the people with no consideration towards sharing stuff (in my domain, audio, there are simply too many of them). I hope that the definition will be enlarged or at least that another term will be found ("transparent hardware"?, "explained hardware?").
taking away from who? open source software means something very specific, microsoft cannot call windows 7 open source software, it's that simple. same goes for hardware.

if someone wants to come up an alternative definition they should, we'd love to see what they come up with - in the past we've suggested "open hardware - non-commercial" for others to consider starting if OSHW doesn't work for them. someone would need to put in a lot of hard work, make the definition, get others to think it's a good idea - so far it seems the vast majority of people doing "open source" hardware like the OSHW definition. if something better comes along, we'd all move to that.

pichenettes wrote: I think you should be in a position to help people make the transition to an OSHW-like licence - rather than telling them "if you don't get it it's not for you". You have the right size and iconic status to make things happen.
there is a definition signed by most/many of the makers in OSHW, there are hundreds of projects, there is an OSHW summit in 2 weeks - we think everyone is doing a great job and there's still more work to be done. that said, we want to manage expectations for people - this is not for everyone. it can be scary for some for sure.
pichenettes wrote:One suggestion would be to push something like the "Creator Endorsed" logo. If people were used to see a logo indicating that a "clone" manufacturer pays royalty to the original designer this would help:
- show designers that there are good guys in the industry too, and help them pinpoint the good guys who are selling clones while supporting the original designers. For now, the statistics about who pays royalties to who is totally hidden (shouldn't transparency be the ultimate goal?).
- raise awareness among customers that some clone makers are nicer than others. It would be much easier then for small players to know that people are paying a bit more attention to the issue of royalties redistribution.
if this is interesting to you, you should create this logo and get others to consider this. as far as who pays royalties, it's not totally hidden - we pay the kit makers we work with and we've shared this information - it's up to others to decide if they want to do that. adafruit has never cloned a kit and not worked with the maker in the capacity the maker wanted - you should contact other companies and see if they say the same. you're welcome to even email our partners and kit makers, we're very proud of our relationships with all of them.

by posting on this topic - you've started, but if you want to convince others that your methods are better there is a lot of work ahead - we like open source hardware and the OSHW definition but if you created something better and better for our customers / the world, we'd use that.

pichenettes wrote:Last but not least: online stores like yours should clearly indicate which kits/products are open source (maybe a small 3 checkmarks logo: schematics/layout available ; design documentation available ; OSHW def compliant). Indeed, it seems that some of your products are not.
anything we (adafruit) makes includes the source, schematics and design files - it's on every product page documentation page. once and awhile it takes a few days to update and upload files, we also use guthub now.

we cannot control what everyone who we works with does, OSHW isn't for everyone - even some of our partners, that's ok - it's totally up to them and we support what they want to do.

that said, it's a good suggestion to add it to even *more* places - we'll consider that, thanks. we realize you (and others) will always hold us under more scrutiny, that's fine - but also please be fair with us and review our entire site, projects and links. it's clear to anyone who cares about these things - if we make it, it's OSHW.

if you do not like what's in the OSHW definition (commercial use allowed, trademarked names allowed) - join in the discussion on the site, get involved, work within the community and convince people those changes are good for the movement. have you posted these thoughts on arduino.cc, on sparkfun, on liquidware? have you talked with bruce perens?

http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/

we've work hard for 5+ years on this, so have others, we're only here because of the work of others - the list of people and companies is fantastic, it's always great to have more involved.

but before anyone starts this, ask yourself - why publish everything just to have it both ridiculed -and- stolen - it must be because there's something bigger than any of us, it must be cause ridicule and theft do not actually matter, some things are worth taking risks - for some it's working out, for others it may not - but don't know any other way we want to be at this time.

if this all sounds "scary" as someone else had mentioned in this thread, it is - it's terrifying and it's wonderful.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

commercial use and commercial production are the same thing when it comes to commercial hardware - if you can't sell a device you make, there's not much more than you can do in a commercial capacity - same things goes for linux, apache, etc. if you can't make money from using it, supporting it and improving it - it's a dead end (for commercial use). "commercial production" is hard to avoid with hardware, by it's nature you make many for many reasons.
What about a project made by hobbyists for hobbyists who want to keep it away from commercial developments? Why, for such projects, "open source" suddenly no longer means "releasing every hardware description file, source file, and bit of information" and now means something entirely different?

The OSD allows many different licenses in the software world. It doesn't seem like the OSHW will lead to the same diversity.
people should choose the license that works for them, if they want a CC'ed project with a restrictive clause on commercialization - great, just do not call it "open source" or "open source hardware"
Same as above. Why can't we call something "open source" if every bit of source code and information about the project is made available? Why denying people striving to share information the use of a pair of words that precisely defines what they do, and by the same act, put them in the same category as those who put warranty void seal on their products.
who specifically has said that? can you post links and specific quotes by specific people?
You just did - by stating that what counts in the "openness of the source" of a project is not the source and amount of transparency itself, but a commerciality clause.
that's an interesting opinion. what examples can you point to of *open source hardware* that is too complex to be understood and modified is a way of trying to "cover your ass" by keeping some IP?
Pretty much everybody who has replied "the answer is in the Eagle file" when asked about something on a forum, or who provides firmware files that do not build / are not up to date, or who doesn't comment their code. I think this is a stronger negation to the principle of sharing than a non-commerciality clause.
it's their trademarked name, it's theirs they're doing exactly what they should do. anyone can (and does) make identical boards to the arduino, they just do not call them arduino. farnell recently did the same, it's identical besides the name.
So Arduino has a right to protect what really allows them to earn money (nowadays, a trademark), but someone else cannot protect themselves?
make good products and sell them at fair prices and offer good support. adafruit wasn't first in market, there are many competitors - and many more each month.
This is what I strive to do, with one extra bit: provide something that people can use to gain better understanding of how things work.
taking away from who? open source software means something very specific, microsoft cannot call windows 7 open source software, it's that simple. same goes for hardware.
Microsoft doesn't follow the spirit of the law nor the letter of the law. GPL+cc-nc-by-sa might not follow the letter of the law which has just been decided, but follows the spirit of the law. That's the difference.

The OSHW definition could be modulated in 3 versions (the same way the CC licenses are) depending on the strength of the commerciality clause: allow, forbid, allow only with the designer's consent. It's not meant to be a license anyway I presume, it'll be more something like "license X is OSHW definition compliant".

This comparison with windows 7 is the kind of derogatory comments I've been referring to in my previous message. There are way nicer way of dissing people than comparing their effort in sharing information to what Microsoft does.
if this is interesting to you, you should create this logo and get others to consider this. as far as who pays royalties, we pay the kit makers we work with and we've shared this information - it's up to others to decide if they want to do that. adafruit has never cloned a kit and not worked with the maker in the capacity the maker wanted - you should contact other companies and see if they say the same.
Again, given the visibility you have, you are in a way better position than anybody to initiate such practices.
anything we (adafruit) makes includes the source, schematics and design files - it's on every product page documentation page. once and awhile it takes a few days to update and upload files, we also use guthub now.
Example: Fuzebox ("open source" everywhere, site mentions GPL but what does it mean for hardware?), LOLShield (No schematics and layout file), Digg button (files but no mention to license), and a lot of modules/breakout boards. There's a lack of top-level communication on the site about what's available, under which license, who did it and who gets money. "People don't care about that when they purchase" is not an acceptable answer - people will care if you start doing it.
http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/

We've work hard for 5+ years on this, so have others - the list of people and companies is fantastic, it's always great to have more involved.
Will do.
but before anyone starts this, ask yourself - why publish everything just to have it both ridiculed -and- stolen - it must be because there's something bigger than any of us, it must be cause ridicule and theft do not actually matter, some things are worth taking risks - for some it's working out, for others it may not - but don't know any other way we want to be at this time.
I'm not in the "theft" and "ridicule" aversion trip. The "bigger" thing you describe, is, to me, the will to educate and the desire to kill the sense of "magic" or "black box" people have been accustomed to feel for electronic devices. What I want is a guarantee that there'll be a way of securing a little something out of my efforts, while keeping a way of involving hobbyists as early as possible when I am designing things.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

pichenettes wrote:What about a project made by hobbyists for hobbyists who want to keep it away from commercial developments? Why, for such projects, "open source" suddenly no longer means "releasing every hardware description file, source file, and bit of information" and now means something entirely different?
correct, it's not open source hardware. just like software made by hobbyists for hobbyists who want to keep it away from commercial developments is not open source software.

pichenettes wrote:The OSD allows many different licenses in the software world. It doesn't seem like the OSHW will lead to the same diversity.
really? the definition is less than 30 days old, you should join in and add these concerns and suggestions.

pichenettes wrote:Same as above. Why can't we call something "open source" if every bit of source code and information about the project is made available? Why denying people striving to share information the use of a pair of words that precisely defines what they do, and by the same act, put them in the same category as those who put warranty void seal on their products.
the same reason you cannot call closed source software like windows "open source software" - it's a very specific term that means a list of things:
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

pichenettes wrote:You just did - by stating that what counts in the "openness of the source" of a project is not the source and amount of transparency itself, but a commerciality clause.
a project needs to allow commercial use to be an open source hardware project, please review the definition that many many people who do open source hardware all have so far agreed upon….
http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

pichenettes wrote:Pretty much everybody who has replied "the answer is in the Eagle file" when asked about something on a forum, or who provides firmware files that do not build / are not up to date, or who doesn't comment their code. I think this is a stronger negation to the principle of sharing than a non-commerciality clause.
again, specifically who - names, and links. it sounds like you just do not like files without tutorials or documentation in the way you want it - we wish everyone released as much documentation as we do - we wish we had more time to release more - but don't assume that someone is "covering their ass to protect their IP" because they've ask you to look at a file.

pichenettes wrote:So Arduino has a right to protect what really allows them to earn money (nowadays, a trademark), but someone else cannot protect themselves?
arduino owns the arduino name, anyone can make the *exact same board* just not call it arduino, it's that's simple. people buy arduino clones all the time, they are not "protected" by a name - people buy real arduinos because they want to support the project and get great support from companies like ours and others.

pichenettes wrote:The OSHW definition could be modulated in 3 versions (the same way the CC licenses are) depending on the strength of the commerciality clause: allow, forbid, allow only with the designer's consent. It's not meant to be a license anyway I presume, it'll be more something like "license X is OSHW definition compliant".
that could happen, get involved - we do not see any reason you shouldn't suggest these things.

pichenettes wrote:This comparison with windows 7 is the kind of derogatory comments I've been referring to in my previous message. There are way nicer way of dissing people than comparing their effort in sharing information to what Microsoft does.
really? a lot of people love windows 7, how is that a derogatory comment? windows 7 is not open source software and microsoft cannot ever say it is.

pichenettes wrote:Example: Fuzebox ("open source" everywhere, site mentions GPL but what does it mean for hardware?), LOLShield (No schematics and layout file), Digg button (files but no mention to license), and a lot of modules/breakout boards. There's a lack of top-level communication on the site about what's available, under which license, who did it and who gets money. "People don't care about that when they purchase" is not an acceptable answer - people will care if you start doing it.
fuzebox is OSHW - read the site
Hardware design, v1.0
This design is released Creative Commons SA-BY. Enjoy!

http://www.ladyada.net/make/fuzebox/download.html

LOLshield is not ours, please review this site (it's OSHW)
http://code.google.com/p/lolshield/downloads/list

download the PCB files, you'll see this, clearly.

APC PCB V1.1 License
This PCB is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
You may manufacture PCBs for both your own personal use, and for commercial use. You will have to provide a link to the original kit on any documentation or website.
You may also modify the PCB files, but you must then release them as well. Credit can be attributed through a link to the product website: http://jimmieprodgers.com/apc/

Digg button is CC 2.5 attribute, the profits are donated to the EFF.
http://www.ladyada.net/media/digg/schematic.png
http://www.ladyada.net/make/digg/download.html
http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2007/08/02 ... r-the-eff/

anything else? have you posted these questions on sparkfun's site, liquidware? others?

can *we* celebrate OSHW even more on *our* site - yes, we think adding more text could make it even better and will will likely do that, our site will never be "done".

we think you've been a bit unfair with us, you didn't provide specifics to any of the accusations you made and all the projects of ours (and others) that you listed are clearly OSHW, commercial use allowed. perhaps it's not in the way you would present it, but we clearly do a lot of OSHW - as the OSHW world evolves perhaps there will be a standard way of showing that is something is OSHW with a logo, until then we post everything in the downloads area of our projects and clearly indicate it's OSHW - we'll do this and more in the coming months / years.

pichenettes wrote:I'm not in the "theft" and "ridicule" aversion trip. The "bigger" thing you describe, is, to me, the will to educate and the desire to kill the sense of "magic" or "black box" people have been accustomed to feel for electronic devices. What I want is a guarantee that there'll be a way of securing a little something out of my efforts, while keeping a way of involving hobbyists as early as possible when I am designing things.
that's great. we feel that there are no guarantees of anything secure, ever - so we do things differently and choose OSHW - our way isn't the only way, it may not work out - it's not for everyone, but it what we are doing for now.

patents are a good way to secure a monopoly for your ideas and designs, many people use those to accomplish what you outlined as well.

please let us know when you send off your suggestions to other companies that do OSHW and join the OSHW community, we'll be looking for your participation there.

cheers,
adafruit

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

correct, it's not open source hardware. just like software made by hobbyists for hobbyists who want to keep it away from commercial developments is not open source software.
What about the projects, such as game engines, released under a dual GPL (for the community) + custom commercial license (for commercial use) pair? How to do something which provides the same thing within the framework defined by the OSHW definition?

What about clauses like "you can include our design on your project but only as a separate PCB ; not copy/paste it into a PCB which includes some bits of your design"? This is the hardware equivalent of the static/dynamic linking restriction of the LGPL.
the same reason you cannot call closed source software like windows "open source software" - it's a very specific term that means a list of things
Got it :) So "open source hardware" no longer means what it means. Arbitraire du signe... I'll be careful with calling my stuff "open source firmware" (GPL, this one applies, right?) + "open schematics" + "open BOM" + "open enclosure design" to avoid confusion.
arduino owns the arduino name, anyone can make the *exact same board* just not call it arduino, it's that's simple. people buy arduino clones all the time, they are not "protected" by a name - people buy real arduinos because they want to support the project and get great support from companies like ours and others.
People talk about "Arduino", newcomers hear about this particular name and this is what most of them will buy when they want to get a board. Keeping control of the name is a way of making sure that whenever there's some buzz about the project, the original gets a large share of sales irrespectively of the quality/cost of clones - a restriction for sake of protection. It's that simple.

Which is why I'm all for allowing different flavors of "restriction for sake of protection". I am personally OK to let 3rd party manufacturers have full freedom on the way they name a derivative on my work.
really? a lot of people love windows 7, how is that a derogatory comment? windows 7 is not open source software and microsoft cannot ever say it is.
Got it. To you, matching 0 points in the OSD list ; vs matching extremely well 9.5 out of 10 (and several others who do not belong to the list but should have been there) is equally worthless. To me, this means two totally different things, and I would do my best to help turn this 9.5 into a 10.
fuzebox is OSHW - read the site
Hardware design, v1.0
This design is released Creative Commons SA-BY. Enjoy!


(snip)

Digg button is CC 2.5 attribute, the profits are donated to the EFF.
http://www.ladyada.net/media/digg/schematic.png
http://www.ladyada.net/make/digg/download.html
http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2007/08/02 ... r-the-eff/
This is great! I totally missed the license information and PCB download links for some of them - most projects' download pages show a CC license, some did not, and for some projects from third parties the PCB files links are not apparent. Again, the way this information is presented to the users is worth being standardized a bit.
anything else? have you posted these questions on sparkfun's site, liquidware? others?
Why would I do so? Sparkfun is a bit more systematic in its presentation of PCB downloads (they are always in the product page, in a section dedicated to them), and I have no experience with liquidware.
pichenettes wrote:patents are a good way to secure a monopoly for your ideas and designs, many people use those to accomplish what you outlined as well.
Windows 7 and now patents! Does it mean I should log out, clear my github repository, and go back to typing my patent application in Word?

I'll still release my thing as something OSHW definition compliant as soon as I'm back afloat financially - as I said in my original post - but be sure that this won't be because of your arguments. Indeed your post should remain as a counter-example of how to get more people release their projects under OSHW-definition compliant licenses. Thanks for your non-support!

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

pichenettes wrote:What about the projects, such as game engines, released under a dual GPL (for the community) + custom commercial license (for commercial use) pair? How to do something which provides the same thing within the framework defined by the OSHW definition?
as you said they are released under a dual GPL (for the community) + custom commercial license (for commercial use) - that sounds perfect for those projects - that world is pretty well defined and people are choosing the license that makes sense for them. for now there is an OSHW definition, that's all, in *draft* if you'd like to see changes, join in - or make one that's better / different. you can also spend time working towards a solution that makes sense for you, we didn't define OSHW - many many people did, join in. in one day you've posted quite a bit here (thanks!) but we are not OSHW - we're less than 1% of it - make your voice heard and talk to the people who helped defined the definition. 100+ could be wrong :)

pichenettes wrote:What about clauses like "you can include our design on your project but only as a separate PCB ; not copy/paste it into a PCB which includes some bits of your design"? This is the hardware equivalent of the static/dynamic linking restriction of the LGPL.
bring that up if and when you choose to participate in the OSHW definition and licensing process.

pichenettes wrote:Got it :) So "open source hardware" no longer means what it means. Arbitraire du signe... I'll be careful with calling my stuff "open source firmware" (GPL, this one applies, right?) + "open schematics" + "open BOM" + "open enclosure design" to avoid confusion.
you can call anything you want anything, that doesn't mean it's accurate or defined that way by others. open source hardware specifically means:
http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

review it carefully, your project may or may not fit - it's not for everyone, but that's fine, there are many licenses and definitions to choose from.

pichenettes wrote:People talk about "Arduino", newcomers hear about this particular name and this is what most of them will buy when they want to get a board. Keeping control of the name is a way of making sure that whenever there's some buzz about the project, the original gets a large share of sales irrespectively of the quality/cost of clones - a restriction for sake of protection. It's that simple.
anyone can make an arduino, many do - they just cannot call it an arduino. we hear from tons of people per month that bought a clone that wasn't called arduino (usually when the clone does not work). the arduino team owns the trademark on the name, it's their business name they operate under this is very very common around the world. again (and you know this) you can make and sell a version of firefox, just don't call it firefox.
pichenettes wrote:Which is why I'm all for allowing different flavors of "restriction for sake of protection". I am personally OK to let 3rd party manufacturers have full freedom on the way they name a derivative on my work.
that's great, if you do not have or want a trademarked name for your project that's fine - OSHW doesn't say anything about this - all it does is allow either way. arduino works with their trademarked name, or you can let anyone use your name. there are people who sell x0xb0xes - that's our name of our product, we let people use it - we just ask they credit us, that's it. many web services are based on OSS, you can make a search engine - just don't call it google, same thing.

pichenettes wrote:Got it. To you, matching 0 points in the OSD list ; vs matching extremely well 9.5 out of 10 (and several others who do not belong to the list but should have been there) is equally worthless. To me, this means two totally different things, and I would do my best to help turn this 9.5 into a 10.
you should do your best if that is what you'd like to see.

pichenettes wrote:This is great! I totally missed the license information and PCB download links for some of them - most projects' download pages show a CC license, some did not, and for some projects from third parties the PCB files links are not apparent. Again, the way this information is presented to the users is worth being standardized a bit.
you didn't even download the LOLshield file to see what license it was before accusing them of not being OSHW, that's a shame - jimmy worked and works very hard creating OSHW it's unfortunate to see him being accused of not releasing files here or doing OSHW. there are likely more incorrect assumptions about what we do and do not do (and others). if we do it, it's OSHW - we'll continue to add even more text and links - although you're the first to say this was a problem, we're always improving our site. we are hopeful there's a standard agreed upon system on indicating what projects are OSHW - so far many have followed what we have done, a downloads page with links, files and licenses. we realize we are a target for criticism, right or wrong because we *do* release a lot.
pichenettes wrote:Why would I do so? Sparkfun is a bit more systematic in its presentation of PCB downloads (they are always in the product page, in a section dedicated to them), and I have no experience with liquidware.
exactly! among the many reasons they've done this is because we (limor and phil) specifically asked nate (sparkfun CEO) to do that, he did and it's great. we have a page dedicated to each one as well, as you've seen, the downloads section for each project - as you said before you "totally missed the license information and PCB download links for some of them". in this case, sparkfun wasn't first to do this - but from your point of view they did a better job, that's great!

feel free to email sparkfun, nate and post in their forums about all this - report back what they say. their eagle library didn't allow commercial use until we (and others) suggested it, you see - we all work together to make things better. join in - we're not going to convince you do anything, it will be up to you! if you want to see changes the first step is to talk to others, not just us in our forums.
pichenettes wrote:Windows 7 and now patents! Does it mean I should log out, clear my github repository, and go back to typing my patent application in Word?
this comes up all the time when people talk about OSHW - we do not think it matters what tools you use to make OSHW. read the OSHW definition, this is covered.

pichenettes wrote:I'll still release my thing as something OSHW definition compliant as soon as I'm back afloat financially - as I said in my original post - but be sure that this won't be because of your arguments. Indeed your post should remain as a counter-example of how to get more people release their projects under OSHW-definition compliant licenses. Thanks for your non-support!
we're not going to ever argue that you should do OSHW, in fact - based on what *you've specifically said* it sounds like it's not for you, you want time-limited monopoly on your design so you can get "back afloat financially" much like a patent. you've picked a license that works for you, why should we convince you to change it? but please review our site, links we've posted *or* give specific examples about things you've said that were not accurate, and things about people doing OSHW that do not seem to be true - our job is to only make great open source hardware and support our customers. OSHW is bigger than just us, it's great.

you should post on other forums like arduino.cc and sparkfun so we are not the only voice you'll hear - you posted in our forums, so we've replied - perhaps others will do a better job of convincing you to change how you work, that is not our goal. we could just ignore these posts and be considered more "supportive" - by being silent we would certainly put less out there for people to criticize - but we posted facts and links to everything you had said or asked.

we'd rather you say we gave you "non-support" than for you to say your expectations were not met and you chose a license or definition you didn't understand for your project and later regretted it. OSHW isn't for everyone - it's a big decision.

regardless, this is an interesting discussion - to make it clear - we are glad you're considering being part of this very exciting development in hardware - we are just one of many voices. so, thanks for posting in our forums, please report back what you hear from the people you contact, forums you post in and ideally bruce perens - he's been part of the OSS world for a very long time. if you do talk to other who do OSHW, the only bit of advice we have - people like jimmy worked and works very hard creating OSHW it's unfortunate to see him (and others) being accused of not releasing files or not being OSHW, it might be better to do some research, google around a bit - read the LICENSE.TXT files that come with the PCBs, etc. maybe they can make improvements on how it's presented, but be nice - these are all *people* trying their best.

cheers,
adafruit

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by pichenettes »

we're not going to ever argue that you should do OSHW, in fact - based on what *you've specifically said* it sounds like it's not for you, you want time-limited monopoly on your design so you can get "back afloat financially" much like a patent. you've picked a license that works for you, why should we convince you to change it?
A patent is ridiculously overkill in this situation - we're talking about periods of a couple of months and budgets of thousands of dollars.

Why will I change? Think a moment from my point of view. My motivation to start my project is the desire to make something entirely documented, modifiable, explained, with all the design files and source showing what's going on - this is the core value of the open source movement. Not being able to identify my effort as "open source" just because of a bullet point in a definition is a big deal to me. A few months ago I was offered a consulting gig to write the firmware of a commercial synth and I accepted it on the condition that my work should be GPL'ed (no talk about open source hardware, it's only a software issue, something I'm much more familiar with). I fought for the idea, did not get the job, but didn't feel bad for one second - so this pretty much sums up my position regarding the issue.

But let's put it from another perspective: let's say that, following heated discussions, the OSHW definition had included a controversial "Open source hardware must not be protected by a trademark" clause. Would you have told the Arduino team: "What you do is not open source hardware, this word now has a very precise meaning and doesn't match what you do. Move on, it's not for you guys, but you can still call your stuff GPL+cc-by-sa+Trademark if you want" . What would you have done in the position of the Arduino team?

Restriction of commercial use along some quantity (time, scope, amount of royalties) is certainly not an idea I'm the only one to be picky about - this thread was not started by me in the first place, and some of the things I've written probably echo some arguments put forward earlier by other posters - they should correct me if I'm wrong or misrepresented their opinion.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by macegr »

A friend reminded me of a product that leads the Arduino by a few years, and could be taken as a possible cautionary tale. The Willem Programmer was designed in an open fashion and worked on by a number of people after the original design. Due to the low price, open design, software, and ease of use, it became very popular in the electronics community. No one worried about copyrights and trademarks or whatever. Then the hardware and software started getting forked, reforked, main supported versions suddenly became closed source, others became open sourced but undeveloped. Overseas producers began pumping out ultra cheap versions of any design they could find. Shoddy workmanship, incompatible software and hardware versions, even sanded ICs plagued the market. Forums and newsgroups running years back are full of pleas for help and support, companies have taken to rebranding and trying to lock down a working system for their customers while making grave warnings about the products from other companies.

If you do your research and expect to pay more, you can still find a working Willem programmer, and it's still a cool product. It's just that the brand was never treated as a brand, and became so diluted and shoddily cloned and revised that "Willem programmer" doesn't mean much.

Right now, the Arduino project is teetering above the same fate. Yet they've made some choices that might postpone or minimize dilution. Being a little cranky about enforcing the Arduino brand is the first step. It might rankle some people but at least there is a real enforced definition of an Arduino. At least you only have to deal with cheap clones, instead of divergent designs all called the same thing. This is VERY important for our new users. Another good choice is more a product of being developed in a different environment than the Willem programmer. These days we're used to using development communities and source repositories with documentable progression, instead of passing around a ZIP file. The transparency and formal licensing make it much easier to converge efforts, instead of pressuring disconnected developers away from each other.

The point I'm making is that restrictions sometimes have a positive effect. Any open source license or definition is really a restriction, after all. Creators will always feel possessive about their creations, it's not fun to see them devolve into oblivion. The Arduino team is taking steps to avoid this. Not prohibiting commercial production, but controlling unauthorized use of their trademark, is actually a rather genius way to approach the problem.

mikeselectricstuff
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by mikeselectricstuff »

Restriction of commercial use along some quantity (time, scope, amount of royalties) is certainly not an idea I'm the only one to be picky about - this thread was not started by me in the first place, and some of the things I've written probably echo some arguments put forward earlier by other posters - they should correct me if I'm wrong or misrepresented their opinion.
I think a major reason for this concern is that unlike software, making hardware involves spending out hard cash, and the economics of electronics (and most other) production means that there is a minimum build quantity required to make things viable.
If someone else comes along and undercuts you before the initial batch is sold, you could end up seriously out of pocket.

Existing OSHW businesses are potentially in a very strong position to undercut new entrants due to their existing infrastructure of equipment, component stocks/buying power and user base/community.
Although this may not be on the agenda of any of these companies at the moment, there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case, especially as the market gets more crowded and competitive.

There does seem to be a perception amongst some, possibly completely unfounded, that the companies/individuals who are defining and hence effectively claiming ownership of the OSHW 'brand' are defining it in a way that is potentially advantageous to their business over than of new entrants, and this perception is bound to at the very least raise suspicion amongst some of the more skepical potential new entrants to the arena, whether justified or not.

My only concern about all of this is that people will be deterred from offering OSHW. Currently the main rebuttal of this appears to be along the lines of "well it's worked for us" with minimal analysis or explanation of the actual reasons for their success and how & why the various aspects are important to that success, which might help newcomers make informed decisions about whether going that route is likely to work for them.

Even something as simple as adding "rationale" sections to the OSHW definition, as is done on some of the OSS definitions may help.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

pichenettes wrote:Not being able to identify my effort as "open source" just because of a bullet point in a definition is a big deal to me.
...and people who do "open source hardware" like to make it clear what they do, it's a *big deal to them* too. they've worked hard to create an agreed upon definition with hundreds of people around the world. maybe they are all wrong and you can convince them otherwise, have you worked on doing so? why ignore all their hard work and efforts?

people would also like to say their works are "patented" without going through that process, but they can't - just like you can't call what you're doing open source hardware unless - it's open source hardware.

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.

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.

please report back how your efforts go, there may be some people here that are interested (we are).

pichenettes wrote:But let's put it from another perspective: let's say that, following heated discussions, the OSHW definition had included a controversial "Open source hardware must not be protected by a trademark" clause. Would you have told the Arduino team: "What you do is not open source hardware, this word now has a very precise meaning and doesn't match what you do. Move on, it's not for you guys, but you can still call your stuff GPL+cc-by-sa+Trademark if you want" . What would you have done in the position of the Arduino team?
no one ever suggested a "Open source hardware must not be protected by a trademark" clause - the hypothetical situation you've made up doesn't make sense at all. if it happens we'll comment on it, but until then it does not exist.

we also cannot speak for the arduino team, *you should contact them* if you want to ask them these questions and also post in the arduino.cc forums since you do not like that they have a trademarked name.

please post links to your posts in the the arduino.cc forums, we'd like to see their responses as well.
pichenettes wrote:Restriction of commercial use along some quantity (time, scope, amount of royalties) is certainly not an idea I'm the only one to be picky about - this thread was not started by me in the first place, and some of the things I've written probably echo some arguments put forward earlier by other posters - they should correct me if I'm wrong or misrepresented their opinion.
so far no one who does OSHW, who signed the definition, who has released open source hardware, who has worked hard in the community of OSHW has wanted "restriction of commercial use along some quantity (time, scope, amount of royalties)" - it's simply not open source hardware, it's something else and maybe OSHW isn't for you if that's what you need.

again, join the OSHW community and *tell the 100+* you concerns, it's not doing much good here to accuse people (and us) of things that are not real or true and saying "I don't buy the "dozens of company thriving" argument either. It doesn't prove anything". you should tell this to others besides us if you're confident it doesn't matter.

if you do join the OSHW, consider giving some of these people a little credit, they've all worked hard and given back more than they've taken. they're all inspiring and great people. the list of people is amazing, we're thrilled how great OSHW is turning out.

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

Re: OSHW draft deffinition and the kitbiz ecosystem

Post by adafruit »

mikeselectricstuff wrote:I think a major reason for this concern is that unlike software, making hardware involves spending out hard cash, and the economics of electronics (and most other) production means that there is a minimum build quantity required to make things viable.
If someone else comes along and undercuts you before the initial batch is sold, you could end up seriously out of pocket.
if you want to have a monopoly on your ideas and designs, file a patent - otherwise you need to compete in the world and if someone does a better job or makes it cheaper, you'll need to adapt or go out of business. don't do OSHW, but as anyone can tell you here - releasing *anything* physical, OSHW or not means someone else can come along and undercut you before the initial batch is sold.

so far (as far as we know) - the scenario you outlined has never happened with an OSHW projects, but it could - just like non-OSHW projects too.

mikeselectricstuff wrote:Existing OSHW businesses are potentially in a very strong position to undercut new entrants due to their existing infrastructure of equipment, component stocks/buying power and user base/community. Although this may not be on the agenda of any of these companies at the moment, there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case, especially as the market gets more crowded and competitive.
so you'd like to punish existing OSHW businesses for something they have not done. you seem to ignore the opposite - a single person can come in and undercut our kits, we have a lot of overhead. is that fair? is that right? it's is it scary?

mikeselectricstuff wrote:There does seem to be a perception amongst some, possibly completely unfounded, that the companies/individuals who are defining and hence effectively claiming ownership of the OSHW 'brand' are defining it in a way that is potentially advantageous to their business over than of new entrants, and this perception is bound to at the very least raise suspicion amongst some of the more skepical potential new entrants to the arena, whether justified or not.
"perception amongst some" - who? give specifics.

mikeselectricstuff wrote:My only concern about all of this is that people will be deterred from offering OSHW. Currently the main rebuttal of this appears to be along the lines of "well it's worked for us" with minimal analysis or explanation of the actual reasons for their success and how & why the various aspects are important to that success, which might help newcomers make informed decisions about whether going that route is likely to work for them.
mike, please review the many many articles, links, presentations, videos and more about how open source hardware businesses work - they're on our site and you can also search for them - and those are just from us. our job isn't to convince you do anything - it's up to you to do the research to see if this fits your needs. OSHW may not be for you, that's fine - there are many other ways to do hardware - OSHW is likely not the best for everyone.
mikeselectricstuff wrote:Even something as simple as adding "rationale" sections to the OSHW definition, as is done on some of the OSS definitions may help.
why aren't you suggesting this to the 100+ people who helped form the OSHW definition? join in.

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”