[DIYbio] Re: [Open Manufacturing] Re: Fwd: The institutionalization of OSHW

On 09/30/2012 04:46 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:

From: Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeople@gmail.com
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org
<mailto:rob@robmyers.org>> wrote:
 >
 > We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its
software doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".

... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
hardware.  As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

Yes it's yet another DFSG derivative so it's easy for people to transfer their knowledge to it from software, culture or data definitions based on the DFSG.

In particular, for something to be called Open Source, it cannot contain proprietary components.

The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and
here, is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all
files be distributed in open-source formats, etc.

I was responding to the particular post.

But that sounds like a sensible idea. Vendor lock-in on formats is a well known problem for access and use of digital materials.

The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation
is "is company X open-source enough."  The example at-hand is the amount
of traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one
specific company for failing to open-source every part which they sell.

They are not Open enough *by their own previously stated principles*, the principles that differentiated them and that made many of us their customers and proponents.

Without that differentiation there are other cheaper and better "almost open" options that I can buy from in future. Or I can bite the bullet and assemble the materials for a Free design myself. But in neither case is there any reason for me to continue with MakerBot.

  And, last I checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they
said it had "open-source components."

Which is a change, and a disappointing one.

I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
different.  It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a
schematic to aid in the continuing of its operation.  I still can get
one for my car. I don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in
that...  But, to be clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and
bike-shedding all day: I don't care whether society is bettered by the
product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is better
serviced by its being so.

That's why Open Source works so well. It doesn't, and I don't, care why someone does the right thing *as long as they do*.

Where they do the wrong thing, I'm not going to accept lectures on their special interests as a functional substitute for them doing the right thing.

And the customers shall vote with their wallet.  Of course, let's not
kid ourselves.  For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation
is that a company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically
irrational to put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?

I'm a customer.

I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
open-source.  I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this
list, for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of
late.  Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company
should be tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product
with a closed part and an open part.

When they've built their reputation on Open Source, their reputation will be affected if they retreat from Open Source.

That anything but 100% is not enough.

It isn't enough to call it Open Source.

Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open,"
to being "open and shared using x..."

I'm not sure how something can be open and not shared, or how introducing proprietary dependencies in designs makes them more Open, but as I say, that is not what I was responding to.

- Rob.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.