Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!

Editing Talk:OSHW

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 22: Line 22:
 
[[Special:Contributions/128.153.100.220|128.153.100.220]] 14:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Russ Nelson)
 
[[Special:Contributions/128.153.100.220|128.153.100.220]] 14:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Russ Nelson)
  
== OSHardware vs OSDesign ==
+
Tcoduhown! That's a really cool way of putting it!
 
 
I am looking for a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA type license for the [http://www.openmotox.org Open Moto X] project. However after spending a few hours time reading about TAPR, OSI, c,nn,m, CC and others my brain is struggling to understand if the various open source hardware licenses (including the OSHW license) are specifically for Hardware i.e: processors and associated systems that run software or if it might also be applied to physical objects in general that are also "hardware" but are more often referred to as "Designs". Of course the OMX bike will include a Battery Management System that will include hardware and software but I would prefer to use one (simple to understand) license if possible. I am hoping that OSHW might eventually be it. --[[User:Payo|Payo]] 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 
  
 
There is a article which suggest that the term "Open Design" is used for such cases. The article  [http://www.engr.uky.edu/psl/omne/download/BazaarDesignOpenMicroAndNanofabricationEquipment.PDF Bazaar Design of Nano and
 
There is a article which suggest that the term "Open Design" is used for such cases. The article  [http://www.engr.uky.edu/psl/omne/download/BazaarDesignOpenMicroAndNanofabricationEquipment.PDF Bazaar Design of Nano and
Line 53: Line 51:
 
--[[User:Mstone|Michael Stone]] 12:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Mstone|Michael Stone]] 12:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  
=== Open Data Formats and CAD Tool License Conflicts ===
+
THX that's a great anwesr!
 
 
As it relates to the broader open source community, collaboration and contributions, requiring data be submitted in any tool vendor specific format could also risk conflict with 3. Derived Works.  For example, CadSoft's EAGLE - used in a lot of open source hardware projects - has a Freeware version with a non-profit only criteria.  A thousand Freeware contributors feeding a dozen Commercial-permitted maintainers doesn't sit well with me; contributing via Freeware may infect the project with the non-profit condition.
 
 
 
Excluding gerber and other low-level formats from 1. Documentation makes things even more complicated.  At least that's an ASCII format that can be parsed and diff'd either directly or through some graphical XOR mechanisms.
 
 
 
All the more reasons to get gEDA and equivalents ramped up. ;-)
 
 
 
-- clothbot
 
 
 
I don't think it's fair to maintainers to tell them they can't demand submissions be made in the format of their choice any more than it is to say that they can't demand that submissions to a F/OSS project be in the language of that project. EDA/CAD tools are typically difficult to use and all merging of changes must be done by hand. It's too much to ask them to license, install, and learn some new tool as well.
 
 
 
If you don't like their choice, fork the project.
 
 
 
-- Pierce Nichols
 
 
 
I too can't wait for gEDA to ramp up. I've got a bunch of designs I want to licence under an open source agreement but my CAD package is very obscure. I don't feel right releasing those design files as they will be next to useless for the average user.
 
 
 
-- Daniel Garcia
 
  
 
=== Design representation file formats ===
 
=== Design representation file formats ===
Line 167: Line 147:
 
-- Stephen Leahey
 
-- Stephen Leahey
  
== ZigBee, OSHW, & non-commercial licenses ==
+
I bow down humbly in the presence of such greastens.
 
 
It's impossible to create a product using ZigBee that meets the terms of the definition. The popular XBee modules are closed entirely, and it is impossible under the terms of the license for the ZigBee standard to create a ZigBee system that is compliant with this definition, specifically the non-discrimination clauses. This is because while the standard is freely available for non-commercial use, commercial users must pay a substantial license fee.
 
 
 
I would like to see the non-discrimination clauses modified in such a way that it is possible to implement ZigBee or other free for non-commercial use protocols/standards in OSHW.
 
 
 
--Pierce Nichols
 
 
 
I spent some time [http://clothbot.com/wiki/Open_Source_Hardware mulling over it] last night, and I think that although the wording needs work, this ZigBee case might be roughly covered under ''10. License Must Not Restrict Other Hardware or Software''.  You should be free to control a ZigBee module (eg [http://www.digi.com/products/wireless/zigbee-mesh/xbee-zb-module.jsp#overview Digi XBee ZB]) as long as the licensing fee is incorporated into the off-the-shelf cost of the module.  I would expect that the manufacturer selling the ZigBee module should have paid that licensing fee.
 
 
 
The devil's in the details as always, but one idea I had was that the wording could change to accomodate some sort of [http://clothbot.com/wiki/Open_Source_Hardware#Box_Test box test] metrics for inclusions of non-OSHW dependencies.
 
 
 
Thoughts?
 
 
 
-- [http://clothbot.org/wiki/ Andrew Plumb]
 
 
 
There are a number of uCs on the market now which have integrated 802.15.4 radio hardware, such as that Atmega128RFA1. In order to get them to function in the intended way, you need some kind of network stack on them. If it's a ZigBee stack of any description, you'll at minimum run afoul of the non-discrimination clause.
 
 
 
However, a way out just occurred to me -- ZigBee is not the only standard network stack built on 802.11.4. The MAC layer protocol is not bound by restrictive licensing and I believe the uracolix project is putting together a truly free implementation. If you need to talk to an XBee module or other ZigBee things, you can download BitCloud yourself and cope with its non-free (and closed source) nature as you see fit.
 
 
 
-- Pierce Nichols
 
 
 
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the box test solves essentially all of my issues.
 
 
 
-- Pierce Nichols
 
  
 
== Making a license around this ==
 
== Making a license around this ==

Please note that all contributions to Definition of Free Cultural Works are considered to be released under the Attribution 2.5 (see Definition of Free Cultural Works:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)