I'm part of the process attempting to codify what "open source hardware" means and how to ensure the people who want to be part of the movement can make wise choices about licences, file formats and encouraging the best aspects of the open source:
Here's how the latest version of the definitions start:
"Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make and sell the design or hardware based on that design. The hardware's source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it. Ideally, open source hardware uses readily-available components and materials, standard processes, open infrastructure, unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to maximize the ability of individuals to make and use hardware. Open source hardware gives people the freedom to control their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open exchange of designs."
You can read the whole thing here. What do you think? Are we on the right track?
Comments
Just my 2 cents. Whatever this turns out to be I appreciate the effort that went into this and the intelligent discussions that have been started across the web.
SparkFun and DIYDrones Store have some products with links to the board files in the bottom, but they aren't in any kind of source control, and any license notes are put in unseen layers in the board design.
I (personally) use GitHub for any open source board designs I have (i really should go open source more of them when i have time). BUT! GitHub is less than ideal. It'd be great if we had a site (like) GitHub with version control with something like SVN/HG/GIT/choose-your-cvs-poison that was open-source hardware board-design aware.
Integrate things like gerbv to generate images of gerberse, allow sharing (cloning/forking to use git terms) of CAM files, and let some CAMs be run server-side.
GitHub provides wonderful easy version management, and forking/cloning and pull requests (social coding at its best!)
BatchPCB allows us to upload designs and view images (on a webpage) of the layers and the whole.
Can we create something in between?
~Alex
As the original creator you still have copyright protection (unless you elect to place your work into the public domain), and all of the recourse that this offers.
"Brand names" are again no different vs. a closed-source product; either you pay for trademark protection and then pay to continually enforce it, or you build brand loyalty amongst your users and simply out-compete the fakers.
@matthew - I don't. I wish that someone would pick up the Mac port, but I've been moderately happy with it under Windows so far. Proper forward/back annotation would be nice, for sure, but for most smaller designs it's not a showstopper for me.
As for the design files, the full language uses "may" in a key spot:
"The documentation must include design files in the preferred format for making changes, for example the native file format of a CAD program. Deliberately obfuscated design files are not allowed. Intermediate forms analogous to compiled computer code -- such as printer-ready copper artwork from a CAD program -- are not allowed as substitutes. The license may require that the design files are provided in fully-documented, open format(s)."
I have been trying it during the last week. It improves on eagle in some areas but fails in others.
Perhaps the worst part is the lack of automatic connection between schematic and PCB editor. If anybody knows of a fix for this, it might be tempting.
Also: Kicad is not supported by some of the european PCB manufacturers. It costs extra 20euro to go with gerbers.
You would be immediately disqualifying every board laid out using Eagle, for example.
Also, where do you stop? There is plenty of legitimately "open source" software that builds with Microsoft's closed-source tool chain on their closed-source operating system. Is it any less "open" for that?
@chris - the last sentence is a little starry eyed. Control is an illusion, and I'm not so sure about commerce, depending on which definition you were thinking of. It's an act of sharing and contribution to the common wealth, which is IMO worthy enough without trying to bring in the free market buzzword gang. 8)