<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
We had the TAPR meeting this weekend in Baltimore, after the Summit.<br>
<br>
TAPR will deprecate the Non-Commercial License and will immediately
apply the Open Hardware License to new work funded by TAPR.<br>
<br>
We had previously used the Non-Commercial License to make sure we
would recoup the investment in our first production run of the
TAPR-funded <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://openhpsdr.org/">http://openhpsdr.org/</a> boards. After that sold out, we
applied the Open Hardware License. History in producing these boards
shows that the NCL is not necessary to protect our revenue, and
nobody ever turns the boards to add the OHL statement when it's time
to do that. Boards after <a href="http://openhpsdr.org/hermes.php">Hermes</a>
will include the OHL statement. Hermes will include the OHL
statement in addendum, as the board has already been laid out.<br>
<br>
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. They pointed out:<br>
<ul>
<li>Some of the things featured at the Summit don't meet the Open
Hardware Definition.<br>
</li>
<li>Some companies that are thought to be leaders in Open Hardware
predominantly make breakout boards for ICs, with little design
investment in them.<br>
</li>
<li>A lot of things said to be open just have a PDF for the
schematic, no modifiable design files, and no gerber files.<br>
</li>
</ul>
So, the feeling at TAPR is that we should work to raise the standard
for "open" in the community.<br>
<br>
We're going to invest some funds in promoting the high design
investment projects which have to a great extent been overlooked.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Bruce<br>
</body>
</html>