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!
Talk:OSHW draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Comments on OSHWD 1.0) |
(comments on oshwd 1.0) |
||
| 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. | ||
* Lack of reference to this site's Definition of Free Cultural works for the documentation seems somewhat of a missed opportunity. | |||
* 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. | ||
* In some ways the [http://opensource.org/osr Open Standards Requirements for Software] are more analogous to the requirements for open hardware design and documentation than is the Open Source Definition upon which the OSHWD is based. | |||
[[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC) | [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:08, 12 February 2011
Comments on OSHWD 1.0
- Somewhat odd that the Open Source Hardware Definition is hosted on the Freedom Defined site. I think the difference between 'free' and 'open' is massively overestimated, but am familiar enough with it to feel cultural dissonance.
- Lack of reference to this site's Definition of Free Cultural works for the documentation seems somewhat of a missed opportunity.
- 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.
- "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.
- In some ways the Open Standards Requirements for Software are more analogous to the requirements for open hardware design and documentation than is the Open Source Definition upon which the OSHWD is based.
Mike Linksvayer 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)