[OH Updates] TAPR meeting results

[J. Simmons]

My name is J. Simmons.  I have attended both of the Open Source Hardware
Summits, and I have been impressed with how far the movement has come in
such a short period of time.  Please pardon me if I am stepping out of line
to comment on this discussion, but I just felt this needed to be shared.

While I certainly have my own moments of frustration about what I expect
from companies which say they are open source and what I experience (just
ask me about my not so graceful blog post regarding the HexBright open
source flashlight on KickStarter), I think one of the Arduino Team's lessons
learned applies here:  "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained with
stupidity."

Let's face it, open source hardware is still new, very new.  I bet that we
would find there are few if any organizations or individuals in the hardware
world that are nearly as open as the great examples from open source
software.  If only because as a movement we are still trying to figure out
what it means to produce open source hardware and how to go about doing it.
 We may all be better served forgiving those that fall short of our
expectations in addition to highlighting those projects which best embody
the spirit of open source software.  More importantly we should explain what
makes those project such good examples.

 -J. Simmons

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeople at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I don't mean to sound confused, but, well, I am.
>
> Last week there was a big conversation about how everything about OSHW
> should be truly "open," including the format which circuit board production
> designs (gerbers, etc.) are shared in.  Note that the perspective here was
> that sharing the production designs were essential, and everything about
> their sharing had to be open-source.
>
> This week, I see this:
>
> "We had a short discussion of whether we should remove some of the
> requirements in the TAPR Open Hardware License in order to get more parties
> to use the TAPR license. This was countered by concern among the leadership
> about the rather low standard for "open" in the Open Hardware community in
> general right now." ... "So, the feeling at TAPR is that we should work to
> raise the standard for "open" in the community."
>
> Why immediately follow up that with listing Ettus as a major example (even
> if then backing away, and calling them just "open hardware" instead of
> "open-source hardware") in this context?  Do they really "raise the standard
> for open?"  If not, why bring them up in this conversation - they seem no
> more open-source, I'm sure, than the companies you call out but refuse to
> mention.  (But, who could know?) Or, is it to be implied that it's ok to not
> share production designs?
>
>
> ---
> Chris Church
> Dynamic Perception, LLC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> updates mailing list
> updates at lists.openhardwaresummit.org
>
> http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/listinfo.cgi/updates-openhardwaresummit.org
>
>


-- 
J. Simmons, President Mach 30
http://mach30.org
*ad astra per civitatem* - To the stars through community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/pipermail/updates-openhardwaresummit.org/attachments/20110920/484a9996/attachment.htm>