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 draft
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 publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* Somewhat odd that the ''Open'' Source Hardware Definition is hosted on the ''Free''dom Defined site. I think the difference between 'free' and 'open' is massively overestimated, but am familiar enough with it to feel cultural dissonance. | * Somewhat odd that the ''Open'' Source Hardware Definition is hosted on the ''Free''dom Defined site. I think the difference between 'free' and 'open' is massively overestimated, but am familiar enough with it to feel cultural dissonance. | ||
* It isn't entirely clear what "the license" refers to. More to the point, it isn't clear that hardware has "distribution terms" equivalent to digital (software or cultural) works. With the latter, the thing is being distributed is what the terms apply to. With the former, it is the thing's design and documentation. One shouldn't want terms to accompany distribution of the hardware. First sale is not something to be contravened! It should be clarified that the terms apply not to distribution of hardware, but of design and documentation accompanying the hardware. | * It isn't entirely clear what "the license" refers to. More to the point, it isn't clear that hardware has "distribution terms" equivalent to digital (software or cultural) works. With the latter, the thing is being distributed is what the terms apply to. With the former, it is the thing's design and documentation. One shouldn't want terms to accompany distribution of the hardware. First sale is not something to be contravened! It should be clarified that the terms apply not to distribution of hardware, but of design and documentation accompanying the hardware. | ||
* "open format" is not defined. | * "open format" is not defined. | ||
* "OSI-approved open source license" could be given a link/reference (this is a minor nit; kudos for including necessary software bit). | * "OSI-approved open source license" could be given a link/reference (this is a minor nit; kudos for including necessary software bit). | ||
* A requirement for Royalty Free patent grant for anything required to exploit design, including implementation of necessary software, ought be considered; otherwise the hardware is encumbered, not open. | * A requirement for Royalty Free patent grant for anything required to exploit design, including implementation of necessary software, ought be considered; otherwise the hardware is encumbered, not open. | ||
[[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC) | [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
* I expect the bit I added about open-source hardware needing to have the design be editable by open-source CAD programs will cause some controversy. | * I expect the bit I added about open-source hardware needing to have the design be editable by open-source CAD programs will cause some controversy. | ||