Open Source Hardware Definition Hits 0.3 93
ptorrone writes "A group of open source hardware makers have put together a draft of the open source hardware definition, now at version 0.3, which hopes to further define the making, sharing and selling of hardware within an 'Open Source Hardware license.' This fall, the day before Maker Faire New York City, the group hopes to have the license finalized for v1.0, and they are holding the first Open Source Hardware Summit. There are currently dozens of companies making open source hardware, altogether worth millions of dollars."
I have to say (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason why open source software works is that it is easy for people to contribute and it is essentially free
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you're right that current manufacturing company's testing and development equipment wouldn't match... the entire poin
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
When is the last time you tried to do a one-off run of a custom chip? It's incredibly expensive. Just creating masks is going to cost you thousands of dollars. There are a lot of fixed costs in creating microchips and you really have to produce a lot of them to get the unit price down to a reasonable level. Standardizing manufacturing instructions isn't going to solve this problem.
If there is any future in open source hardware, it will only be for digital electronics and it will use FPGAs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes really. Check out BatchPCB, which is just one among hundreds of companies that do affordable 1-off custom boards: http://batchpcb.com/index.php/Products [batchpcb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In quantities of 1 (one)? I rather fucking doubt it.
Your a fucking idiot. [google.com] Just because you can't wrap your head around advanced creation doesn't mean others suffer from the same affliction. Also don't confuse the lack of shrink wrap to be any indication of performance or quality as seems to be the case in this thread.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Extraordinary? For work prototyping I usually get mine here: http://goldphoenixpcb.biz/quote2.php [goldphoenixpcb.biz]
It's $100 for 100in^2 (that's a lot of space!) for 2-layer. In 6 years I've only once had a pressing need for more layers. Obviously, $100 is definitely not free (it's tangible goods and labor after all), but if you have a few friends who want boards, your price per design drops pretty quickly. BatchPCB does exactly this.
There's plenty of design space left for people who are not making GHz PCs and cell phones. I
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's not a quantity of one, is it? Send me a postcard from Stockholm.
Re: (Score:1)
Your a fucking idiot. [google.com] Just because you can't wrap your head around advanced creation doesn't mean others suffer from the same affliction. Also don't confuse the lack of shrink wrap to be any indication of performance or quality as seems to be the case in this thread.
I don't know how a google search for "custom multiplayer pcb" is going to help him recover from his "fucking idiot" condition.
Re: (Score:2)
What about things like the RepRap? The design is open but companies can still make profits (selling some pre-made parts, complete kits and even ready-to-run printers).
Re:I have to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 informative. Plus they could design their hardware using VHDL or Verilog, as happened with the Commodore Amiga FPGA project. It allowed people to work with common code and each contribute a little piece.
Which reminds me: Is there a site to join Open Source VHDL projects (as exists with OSS linux design)?
Re: (Score:1)
So are all the VHDL tools free and open source? How about the tools to program the parts?
Are the FPGA chips themselves unencumbered with patents and trade-secret processes used to produce them?
That's all important, too.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>That's all important, too.
Not to me it isn't. As long as the tools are free is all I care about. Like VLC or Opera which are not open-source but don't cost me anything, so I use them. Anyway to answer your question: I'm not aware of any "open source" development tools but all the companies like Xilinx, Actel, and Altera provide the tools for free. It's the classic Remington Shaver model - You get the tool for free, but you have to pay for the parts.
And yes the FPGAs are patented but it isn'
Re:I have to say (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why open source software works is that it is easy for people to contribute and it is essentially free to give someone a copy. That is not the case with hardware.
Are you ever going to be confused when you learn about FPGAs.
http://www.opencores.org/ [opencores.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose people could develop test systems using FPGAs and then publish the design for what the dedicated hardware piece would look like though. Okay I retract my comment, there is some potential for open source hardware. Lots more difficulties though than downloading a copy of a package and starting hacking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose people could develop test systems using FPGAs and then publish the design for what the dedicated hardware piece would look like though.
Well, in practice my Spartan3 FPGA experimenters board from a couple years ago cost approximately as much as a "really good keyboard" or about half the cost of a "reasonable tower chassis". Or somewhere between 1 and 2 months cablemodem service. You can treat the FPGA as a distinct PLCC or BGA that needs to be soldered to something you make, or treat the FPGA as the standard PCB breakout/demo board that all manufacturers sell (cheaply) to promote their devices. Standard slashdot car analogy is you can bu
Re: (Score:1)
And the development software is free.
Where can I download a source tarball?
Re: (Score:2)
xilinx.com
actel.com
altera.com
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that 'open source' == 'free'? ;-) The deliverable is still just design files in most cases; it's not like open hardware folks put out buckets full of assembled PCBs in subway stations. (good thing, too, because in some cities you'd get arrested for that...)
Re: (Score:2)
You already are.
FPGAs are great for prototyping and when you actually do need dynamic reconfiguration of low level code (gates).
In reality they are slower and more expensive to the point that they really aren't useful outside of specialized applications, which is why your PC uses an intel x86 microprocessor and an nVida or ATI GPU rather than some random FPGA.
And the end result is that you're STILL making software, not hardware.
FPGAs are cool and useful, but to think they can be used in a generalized way shows you have no idea what they are used for.
I suppose that the many many products shipping with FPGAs are "specialized." Your point of view is outdated. And of course we don't use FPGAs in a "generalized way," as FPGA designs (other than the toys one would come up with to use on a development board) are indeed application-specific.
Basically, without FPGAs, my company simply could not build our products.
signed, FPGA hardware guy.
Re: (Score:2)
One may consider FPGA codes to be also software. Yes, the instructions are a little different, but the concept is quite similar to standard machine code.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It has to start somewhere. Someone has to dream and try to make their dreams come true for things to even change. If no one ever bothers, then what's the point?
true (Score:2)
So you were left guessing how to optimize code or the thing because you had no idea how things are implemented, where something might be shown as a single micro-op
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is strong corporate backing behind open source software. For example, about 75% of Linux is written by corporations. The same arguments they use (basically, if we put stuff out there, we can benefit from others building on it and publishing their improvements) should also apply to hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm typing this on an IBM keyboard. I'd tell you the model number, but it's so heavy I can't turn it over.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have the source code for the i8041 processor in your IBM keyboard?
I believe I have the source listings for the original IBM XT and AT keyboards, in the Technical Reference manual. But do you?
Re: (Score:2)
They are dreaming.
The most obvious, incredibly stereotypical counter example is the electronics kit building industry.
There's a whole subculture of people selling kits based on electronics magazine articles. Lots of radio kits based on QST articles. Phasing type SSB TX and RX, ATV TX and downconverters, various transverters...
Technically the magazine is copyrighted. However, I've also purchased and built completely, literally open hardware devices like a SBC6120 single board PDP-8 computer. And other things.
The folks run
Re: (Score:1)
Technically, you don't have the microcode listing for the Intersil 6120 processor, so it's not really open hardware.
I have a few tubes of HM6100 processors still in my stock. Cool chip. All CMOS with no dynamic registers. You can clock it down to .05 hertz if you want. The 12 bit data bus is a little awkward to work with, because ROMs and memory and I/O stuff is usually 8 bits wide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are dreaming. Sure some hardware is relatively easy to develop on your own on a small budget. But most of it needs expensive equipment, fab facilities, testing systems etc. If you think a group of disperse individuals will each have the same equipment to collaborate you're dreaming. If you think a company is going to by the hardware and then let anyone manufacture it again you are dreaming.
So, they have a dream, huh :P? Very dramatic, but you're confusing two orthogonal ideas: free/make-it-yourself hardware and open source hardware.
Open source hardware means the spec is open, and any (suffiently rich) person or a company could manufacture clones of the hardware piece free of fees and obligations. The PC architecture is a fine example of mostly open source hardware, that has had wild success.
Sure, PCs aren't free, but the fact anyone could enter the market and make PC clones have significantl
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They are not dreaming. Look at the Arduino project (http://www.arduino.cc/). This is an open source hardware project. All OSHW means is that anyone can make it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CNC routers, extruders, and sintering machines are all within range of the hobbyist much like computers were
30 years ago. Several people will loan you a prototyping machine if you promise to loan out the one you build with it.
Just the availability of small $200 XYZ stages makes tons of industrial automation possible: pick&place, automated testing, cutting, and the already mentioned routing and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are measuring against a yardstick of success that doesn't really apply.
To be "successful" an open hardware manufacturer does not need to become the next Intel. They're not necessarily trying to build mass market widgets. They're protecting a group of users that the rest of the industry badly to ignore: the imaginative user of technology.
There are people out here who really don't strive to own the latest iPhone, but rather have specific applications for which the mass marketeers don'
Re: (Score:1)
People who are "dreaming" threaten the status quo, and thus also threaten people who are frightened of change and progress. I don't know why there's so much scoffing about open source hardware (or open source anything) because it's not like it's going to take away your safe mass-marketed gear or anything.
Those who scoff tend to lack the imagination to do anything along those lines, or lack the confidence to build their skills up to the point where they are capable of doing something interesting, new, and innovative. It's far easier to bust someone's chops for "dreaming" or "being unrealistic" to cover the fact that the naysayer has balls the size of peas (if applicable) than it is to get off of one's ass and do something.
Re: (Score:1)
The reason why open source software works is that it is easy for people to contribute and it is essentially free to give someone a copy. That is not the case with hardware.
That may be true for hardware, but not for hardware designs. When you have open PCB design formats, those can be shared for free and be easily contributed to.
safety razor blade (Score:2)
This is open source hardware, the patents are all gone, anyone can make them. A number
of manufacturers make them to a single double edged standard.
The point is a hardware definition not making the actual hardware itself. Its defining standards
for making the hardware. Having open source definitions for hardware makes it easier for hardware manufacturers
to be compliant with the standard at cost.
Having a free open standard makes low cost vanilla hardware easy.
Re: (Score:2)
This is open source hardware, the patents are all gone, anyone can make them. A number of manufacturers make them to a single double edged standard.
The point is a hardware definition not making the actual hardware itself. Its defining standards for making the hardware. Having open source definitions for hardware makes it easier for hardware manufacturers to be compliant with the standard at cost.
Having a free open standard makes low cost vanilla hardware easy.
What if this "standard" is totally inapplicable to my application? This is the part that I don't understand.
Then dont use it... (Score:2)
duh.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are confusing open source with free as in beer
Re: (Score:1)
...But most of it needs expensive equipment, fab facilities, testing systems etc.
You're forgetting that PC's were pretty expensive and had to be assembled and soldered together, just like the open source 3D printers today. Also, 3D printers becoming dramatically cheaper though some assembly is required for most of the open source designs.
If you think a group of disperse individuals will each have the same equipment to collaborate you're dreaming.
The RepRap community is a group of disperse individuals who have similar (3D printing) equipment and who are collaborating on making various designs, including the open source 3D printers themselves. You're right that it's not exactly common yet to do
Re: (Score:2)
Making your own dollars is a federal offense.
No, no. Making it is fine. *Keeping* it is a federal offense.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you SOOOO much for using the accent. So many people don't seem to know how to type it.
Re: (Score:2)
But she still missed off the final e.
Interesting change from OSS definition (Score:2)
OSS definition, Section 6:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
OSHW definition, Section 7:
7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the hardware in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the hardware
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not clones, but there are definitely people doing genetic engineering at home [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a historical note from an old timer, in an earlier era, maybe a decade or so ago, there was extremely heavy pimping of using open source software to do biological genetic processing "bioinformatics". By 2010, we'd all be doing genetic processing in our basement as our primary hobby. It was successful enough in its field, but not widespread to the masses.
The discrimination against nuclear is from the standard proprietary software licenses forbidding use of MS products for air traffic control, medical de
Re: (Score:1)
An automatic defibrillator is a pretty easy project, actually. Just an EKG monitoring circuit and a honking big capacitor. However, debug and testing is a real challenge. And who is going to use it when it's done?
Re: (Score:2)
I like to think of it in these terms:
of or relating to or constituting the core (nucleus) of a tiny piece of said item (atom)
In other words... everything you can think of and in gruesome detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Open Source Hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
for most hardware of any significance
What is significant varies a lot from person to person. Building an inexpensive circuit that does something fun is significant if you find it to be so.
a provider of open source hardware has to expend significant manufacturing
Not so. If I build a single circuit to satisfy my own urges, I can still open source the schematic, pcb layout, parts footprint, etc. in a way that other people can use. They can fab it as is, or they can modify it, then fab it. Or, just look at it out of curiousity. No one says you have to manufacture your design in bulk, in the same way that you can create your own distro without having to send it to Best Buy in shrink-wrapped boxes. You can fab a prototype PCB these days for tens of dollars if you don't need it in a couple of days.
Re:Open Source Hardware (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with "Open Source" hardware, and any other tangible thing, is simply that for most hardware of any significance, a person would need a factory and expensive resources handy to go about trying to make it.
You are soooo obviously not a modern electronics entrepreneur. You rent all that stuff. Yes, over the internet. Just like I don't need my own personal silk screen offset printing press I just use cafepress and competitors.
There's about a dozen board houses where you upload a PCB file, and in a couple days they mail you ready to solder PCBs. Multi layer, exotic substrates, plating, solder mask, these guys do it all. Generally PCB manufacture is completely automated, about as much slow human touch as buying a book from amazon. This is not vapor ware or a nebulous student business plan, but a pretty big business. Most PCB houses are glad to do one offs for a price, although theres obvious quantity discounts.
If you will lower yourself to talking on the phone to a salesweasel, "most" board houses either have inhouse assemblers or a "special relationship" with a local assembler. You will need to talk extensively about assembly service, and FAX custom contract back and forth. Someone could probably make a killing in the business by "semi-automating" this process much like happened to ultra-small run PCB business over the last decade. The main problem with assemblers is their "JIT" sourcing of parts and their pre-soldering inspection of parts... um... has some stereotypical problems.
There are at least half a dozen businesses where you upload a certain CAD file and in a couple days you get all manner of metal front panels, cases, and just plain ole random metalwork. Again all automated, about as difficult as uploading a picture to cafepress or uploading a "gerber" file to a PCB house. Not as popular as PCB houses, but up and coming.
There would probably be a business opportunity for someone to set up an expediting service over the internet to coordinate all these guys. But trust me, at least for open source electronics devices, if you know how to use google its pretty much ask and ye shall receive (if ye have a thick enough wallet, of course).
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Most relevant and informative post so far. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it looks like the vast majority of the "open source hardware" projects were toys with blinking lights and pointless gadgets.
First, I'd say that early computers were likely characterized by many as pointless gadgets with blinking lights.
significantly improve our computing infrastructure and get rid of the problems caused by closed hardware (especially things like video cards, which are still giving open source OS's trouble)
Secondly, you view this too narrowly. The idea of open source hardware goes far, far beyond the personal computer. It's about being able to develop all sorts of hardware. Things that interface to the OBD port of your car. An alarm clock that has 4 alarm times instead of 1 or 2. A way to blink your Christmas lights to the BeeGees. These are the goals of open source hardware. Oh, and yes, may
Re: (Score:2)
For now.
There was a time when you needed a building full of expensive equipment and professional engineers to make a hit record. Now, we have music on the charts that is made in home project studios using a few grand worth of gear.
It's never a good idea to predict the future based on the limita
Full text (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like it's getting a slashdotting, so here you go:
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!
Introduction
Open Source Hardware (OSHW) is a term for tangible artifacts -- machines, devices, or other physical things -- whose design has been released to the public in such a way that anyone can make, modify, distribute, and use those things. This definition is intended to help provide guidelines for the development and evaluation of licenses for Open Source Hardware.
It is important to note that hardware is different from software in that physical resources must always be committed for the creation of physical goods. Accordingly, persons or companies producing items ("products") under an OSHW license have an obligation not to imply that such products are manufactured, sold, warrantied, or otherwise sanctioned by the original designer and also not to make use of any trademarks owned by the original designer.
The distribution terms of Open Source Hardware must comply with the following criteria:
1. Documentation
The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. Where documentation is not furnished with the physical product, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining this documentation for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The documentation must include design files in the preferred form for which a hardware developer would modify the design. 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.
2. Necessary Software
If the hardware requires software, embedded or otherwise, to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions, then the documentation requirement must also include at least one of the following: The necessary software, released under an OSI-approved open source license, or other sufficient documentation such that it could reasonably be considered straightforward to write open source software that allows the device to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original hardware. The license must allow for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files or derivatives of the design files.
4. Free redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the project documentation as a component of an aggregate distribution containing designs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. The license shall not require any royalty or fee related to the sale of derived works.
5. Attribution
The license may require derived works to provide attribution to the original designer when distributing design files, manufactured products, and/or derivatives thereof. The license may also require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original design.
6. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the hardware in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.
8. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the hardware must apply to all to whom the product or documentation is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
And the community (Score:2)
Some of the more interesting threads have been documented here [openmanufacturing.org].
- Bryan
"Definition of open-source hardware" (Score:2)
so, really, exactly what does this "Open source hardware definition" define?
Does it simply allow someone to post schematics, firmware sources, Gerber files and BOMs with the implied, "Please don't make a bunch of these and sell them as your own design," or is there more to it?
TFA doesn't talk about any sort of interoperability standards or anything else. it certainly doesn't talk about the notion of "contributing changes back to the community."
I understand all of the arguments about, "Why aren't commercial
Re: (Score:1)
Does it simply allow someone to post schematics, firmware sources, Gerber files and BOMs with the implied, "Please don't make a bunch of these and sell them as your own design," or is there more to it?
This license might work just as well for that: Creative Commons by attribution/non-commercial/share-alike (v3.0) [creativecommons.org]
Maybe I can finally reify a bitgrid with this (Score:2)
I'm hoping that someday I'll be able to reify a bitgrid. This looks like one possible path forward.
A bitgrid is just an FPGA without routing logic. It's a grid of 4bits in 4 bits out Look up tables each connected to their nearest neighbors in a 2d grid. There's no routing to worry about because any cell can be used as either logic or routing, and both at the same time in most cases.
Configuration is done by storing data in the look up tables. The whole thing looks like a chunk of static RAM to the host.
I'm w