Proposed Open Source Hardware guidelines

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?

I think it's sort of odd to define guidelines for something as broad as open source hardware. Most of my open source hardware projects follow the standard you helped define, but I recently just released a new project under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 because I wanted to see if it helped unify this project and reduce the threats. I kind of doubt it will, but I want to try it. I'm still going to call it Open Source hardware and I believe I'm justified because I use a version of the Creative Commons. I really like the flexibility the Creative Commons gives and think it would be smart to model your document after their approach and offer different levels of openness. I also think it should have a more unique name than "Open Source Hardware" so that people can say they follow your guidelines. Without a unique name there will just be confusion since some people will say they have open source hardware while not following these guidelines.

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.

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

Geoffrey L. Barrows October 12, 2010 at 6:59am

I think the definition is on track. The nature of hardware in today's world is such that openness to the same level as software is not always feasible, since many times proprietary or closed components can become part of the design. But IMHO the definition in it's current form does a nice job reconciling the overall "spirit" of OSHW with reality.
Maurice Ribble October 9, 2010 at 4:54pm

I think it's sort of odd to define guidelines for something as broad as open source hardware. Most of my open source hardware projects follow the standard you helped define, but I recently just released a new project under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 because I wanted to see if it helped unify this project and reduce the threats. I kind of doubt it will, but I want to try it. I'm still going to call it Open Source hardware and I believe I'm justified because I use a version of the Creative Commons. I really like the flexibility the Creative Commons gives and think it would be smart to model your document after their approach and offer different levels of openness. I also think it should have a more unique name than "Open Source Hardware" so that people can say they follow your guidelines. Without a unique name there will just be confusion since some people will say they have open source hardware while not following these guidelines.

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.
Alex October 9, 2010 at 3:16pm

Now would be an excellent opportunity to look at the mechanisms by which we share the board designs. Right now there is no good (dedicated) solution.

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
3D Robotics

Chris Anderson October 9, 2010 at 12:57pm

ionut: that's what licencees are for. Anyone can take the work (and modify it if they want), but credit and attribution must be retained. The only thing we protect, via trademark, is the name (ArduPilot, ArduPilotMega, ArduCopter, etc)
Developer

Michael Smith October 9, 2010 at 12:55pm

@ionut - The same way that you would in any other similar situation; the stakes are simply lower, as you're not trying to protect your design against replication.

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.
ionut October 9, 2010 at 12:33pm

How do you deal with counterfeits.If someone steal your work and pretend it is his work?Also what if he modifies it and pretend he is the genuine developer that brand name(e.g.ArduPilot and OilPan)?
Developer

Michael Smith October 9, 2010 at 10:52am

@chris - I should have directed the comment re: Eagle more specifically to Joe, as I was responding to his comment about an open-source toolchain.

@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.
3D Robotics

Chris Anderson October 9, 2010 at 6:27am

Michael, we actually wrote it specifically with Eagle in mind.

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)."
Matthew Coleman October 9, 2010 at 5:34am

Does anybody know of a "better" open source package than kicad?

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.
Developer

Michael Smith October 9, 2010 at 1:34am

The mandate on an open-source tool chain might sound nice, but to be perfectly honest the tools available in that category right now range from promising to downright woeful.

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)

of 2

This reply was deleted.