EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!

[apelly]

Except that it doesn't tell you what things are being opened.

Thread got busy quickly.

You are correct. It's on a PCB. There isn't room for specifics. The community defines the things that can be opened; you just tell us how many of them are. If anyone cares any more than that they are well capable of looking it up in your docco.

Keep it simple. It's a logo, not a legal brief.

[Brumby]

This is basically a religious debate about just what "open source" means.

I can't say that I can agree with you.

The original (current) position is either all or nothing - just black and white.  The reality, however, is NOT so clear.  There are many shades of grey.

To exclude these shades from the concept of their being some degree of openness, indicates a lack of appreciation for an organisation/individual that has at least made an effort.  Without such recognition, such contributors are less motivated to offer anything ... and ANYTHING offered will make a difference!

It's a practical step.

[klh_js]

Sweet! 
Possible to have it generate under the logo as an option?, many people are suggesting that as a better way to go.

It's up: https://maciek134.github.io/oshw-logo-gen/

Sure, for now it generates on the logo - I'll add an option to generate under the logo (and probably some styles) after work. Can someone provide an example of how it should look like (under the logo)?

I can also make it generate the icons. I guess it should also be possible to export PNG - I used Ubuntu font since it's similar to Arial Bold and it's Free (you don't get Arial on linux for example), but SVG export means you have to have the font installed on your system.

[Tabs]

Except that it doesn't tell you what things are being opened.

Keep it simple. It's a logo, not a legal brief.

For me it's more of a symbol which is supposed to convey a meaning. I always come across a symbol whose meaning I don't know. I always make a mental note to look it up. Never do.

I would like to see the legabillity results before i decide. Even if it failed, I would consider changing the logo to make the configurations clearer and not bother with having to look up openness in a document. Purely because there are people who are as lazy add I am.

[Tabs]

Sweet! 
Possible to have it generate under the logo as an option?, many people are suggesting that as a better way to go.

It's up: https://maciek134.github.io/oshw-logo-gen/

Sure, for now it generates on the logo - I'll add an option to generate under the logo (and probably some styles) after work. Can someone provide an example of how it should look like (under the logo)?

That was quick. Looks very clear to me. Good job.

[EEVblog]

You are correct. It's on a PCB. There isn't room for specifics.

i was also thinking that the designers openess might change before release, and if  it's baked onto the PCB that could be troublesome.
Also, font size is a problem, so text below the logo is probably the only option here.

[Tabs]

You are correct. It's on a PCB. There isn't room for specifics.

i was also thinking that the designers openess might change before release, and if  it's baked onto the PCB that could be troublesome.
Also, font size is a problem, so text below the logo is probably the only option here.

If legibility is a problem, you don't really need the letters. Is the attributes meaning is assigned to the tooth position then you could just have a circular dot in the tooth to signify the attribute is open. This could be scaled down and still be clear.

[apelly]

For me it's more of a symbol which is supposed to convey a meaning. I always come across a symbol whose meaning I don't know. I always make a mental note to look it up. Never do.

Then you don't care. Like nearly all people, I'd wager. That's fine. But give me a simple scale over a cryptic code any day.

I would like to see the legabillity results before i decide. Even if it failed, I would consider changing the logo to make the configurations clearer and not bother with having to look up openness in a document. Purely because there are people who are as lazy add I am.

Are you telling me you'll remember what all those letters mean? I've forgotten already. There are many more important things in my life than the specifics of nearly all open hardware projects. My eyes glazed over when Dave demonstrated his idea.

However, his idea does have merit as long as the specific information is in the right place: The website or other docco. Not the logo. The logo's function in this instance is to tell you there is more information available, while giving you a clue about the projects openness.

Go get a board that has a gear logo on the silk. How legible are your letters going to be?

[apelly]

the designers openess might change before release, and if  it's baked onto the PCB that could be troublesome.

Hmmm.

You're right. So there goes the whole idea really.

I guess it's wise not to include the logo at all if you aren't sure.

You don't have to use the logo to open your designs though.

[Tabs]

For me it's more of a symbol which is supposed to convey a meaning. I always come across a symbol whose meaning I don't know. I always make a mental note to look it up. Never do.

Then you don't care. Like nearly all people, I'd wager. That's fine. But give me a simple scale over a cryptic code any day.

I would like to see the legabillity results before i decide. Even if it failed, I would consider changing the logo to make the configurations clearer and not bother with having to look up openness in a document. Purely because there are people who are as lazy add I am.

Are you telling me you'll remember what all those letters mean? I've forgotten already. There are many more important things in my life than the specifics of nearly all open hardware projects. My eyes glazed over when Dave demonstrated his idea.

If you can design a PCB of sufficient complexity/usefulness that people would appreciate you open sourcing, then I would argue your're intelligent enough to remember the meaning of a few letters or positions (see my last post).

[apelly]

If you can design a PCB of sufficient complexity/usefulness that people would appreciate you open sourcing, then I would argue your're intelligent enough to remember the meaning of a few letters or positions (see my last post).

It's not for the bloody designer. It's for the consumer. Someone with a passing interest. Anyone with a deep interest already knows what you've bloody open sourced.

[Tabs]

You are correct. It's on a PCB. There isn't room for specifics.

i was also thinking that the designers openess might change before release, and if  it's baked onto the PCB that could be troublesome.
Also, font size is a problem, so text below the logo is probably the only option here.

I suppose the public could copy the documentation before the change and fork from then on. This assumes the documentation is version controlled and accessible (the project website hasn't been deleted). You could keep a clone of the site but it's starting to sound like it wouldn't be with the effort.
Baking it on to the PCB is hard coded

[EEVblog]

Then you don't care. Like nearly all people, I'd wager. That's fine. But give me a simple scale over a cryptic code any day.

The problem with a scale is that the actual things be opened matter.
You could have a 4/5 scale open project but that 1/5th is the showstopper for you, you need to know what that is.
A scale has far less meaning than letters/icons in this instance.
Just image creative commons using a scale CC-4/5's is meaningless.

[Tabs]

If you can design a PCB of sufficient complexity/usefulness that people would appreciate you open sourcing, then I would argue your're intelligent enough to remember the meaning of a few letters or positions (see my last post).

It's not for the bloody designer. It's for the consumer. Someone with a passing interest. Anyone with a deep interest already knows what you've bloody open sourced.

Sorry I was referring to you saying you forgot the meaning. I assumed the general public with an interest in this topic were intelligent enough and could remember the meaning of a few letters.

I also assumed you were one of these people. (There I go assuming again, making an ass out of you and me). Let me know if I'm wrong, im sure you only said it to make a point.

[EEVblog]

It's not for the bloody designer. It's for the consumer. Someone with a passing interest. Anyone with a deep interest already knows what you've bloody open sourced.

Actually, it more for the desings and those technical people in the field than the consumer. Just like the consumer doesn't care about Creative Commons letter codes, similar thing here.
This system allows your peers in the field to see at a glance how open your project is, and I think that's important.

[jolshefsky]

I admire your solution, Dave, but even then there are nebulous edges in the specifics. Like you say, the schematic can be anything from a PDF (or PNG, worse yet) all the way to a complete ZIP of the raw design files. And then the raw design files could be for an expensive commercial product ... In other words, every single letter on the logo now encapsulates the same nebular problem that the whole logo does.

And this is the same problem as in any community logo. I usually see it with foods, "Organic" or "Non-GMO" for instance. Even "Made in..." country-of-origin is fairly meaningless since virtually no project has 100% of its raw-material-to-product stream existing in one place: does "made" mean "assembled" or does it mean "designed" or does it mean "all parts sourced in" or does it mean "we have shill companies that front parts from overseas so we can claim it's all local"?

Fortunately since OSHW is a tech-specific issue (assuming nobody is making OSHW furniture off-grid, at least) then one can expect there to be a website. As such, just include a URL on your boards and advertising. From a consumer view, this would mean you'd see a product listed as open source. Go to the URL and see what they offer. If it's not up to your standards, don't buy into it. Or do. Or go complain about it on the Internets.

The logo—from a community value standpoint—would only become worthless if it were slapped on nearly every single product. You'd eventually get to know the companies that are generally "more" open, offering better documentation, and those that are "less".

[apelly]

Actually, it more for the desings and those technical people in the field than the consumer.

OK.

I will just throw this in, and I'll leave you to it:

If you're thinking of designing something you might start by looking for similar open hardware that you can build on. If there aren't design details you move on to the next candidate. This resolves itself in a few minutes for each candidate on its relevant website; you were on the website anyway because you wanted more information about how relevant the candidate was to you.

Where does the logo come in for the technical guy? Maybe you're holding a board and it inspires you. You check the logo to see if you should waste your time on the web looking for info? Seems unlikely to me. More likely you check the web anyway, just to be sure.

The ideologist, however, prefers to buy open hardware, and would like to see at a glance how open it is.

To be fair, I haven't seen any of this raging debate you're talking about, so I actually have no idea who is complaining, or what about, so I shouldn't really have my nose in here.

[neta]

I admire your solution, Dave, but even then there are nebulous edges in the specifics.
[...]
The logo—from a community value standpoint—would only become worthless if it were slapped on nearly every single product. You'd eventually get to know the companies that are generally "more" open, offering better documentation, and those that are "less".

You have a point, and I don't personally think a perfect solution can ever be found.

In the open source software land (where things tent be be a little less fuzzy because either you have the source to build something or you don't), OSI has approved nearly 80 licenses, each with slightly differing licensing schemes and areas of coverage.

Now that is a mess that will probably never be solved in simple terms.

Things get invariably more complex as they gain traction; at the moment the one-size-fits-all logo is getting instances where it just isn't "good enough".
I think the point is getting out something that is, without being cumbersome to anyone.

[Tabs]

A designer will eventually do due diligence on any source material; I think what we're discussing is a way to do this quickly and effectively using a method that doesn't rely on information that can change in the future like a project website.
Example
(Can't remember if red pitaya originally said open source  - I checked now and they have cleared this to open source software) I spent a long time looking around their site for the schematics but couldn't find it. There was a discussion on this forum about it where others did the same. This could have been avoided.
Again the website could change its contents or be removed altogether. Having a permanent logo would at least let you copy by reverse engineering if you absolutely had to use that design.

Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk

[elgonzo]

Skywodd on twitter has suggested symbols instead of letters.
I like the look of that, but probably a bit big?
https://twitter.com/skywodd/status/774197283747303424

For practical reasons, I would prefer letter over those icons, and -- similar to what skywodd did there -- i would like the letters below the logo (not in/on the teeth of the cogwheel).
Just placing the same and only logo graphic resource and centered below the letters denoting the openness of your project is much easier to realize. Needing some sort of a generator or manually tinkering with the logo graphics to create a specific logo for all places (PCB silkscreen, documentation, etc...) becomes tedious, i am afraid.

Also, there is another advantage in using letters -- you can describe the openness of a project in text form (forum posts, twitter, etc...). Something like "OSHW-SPC", for example. Try this if everyone only knows and uses icons...

[seanhodgins]

How about something like this?



The teeth represent what is available as far as your source goes.

[elgonzo]

I admire your solution, Dave, but even then there are nebulous edges in the specifics. Like you say, the schematic can be anything from a PDF (or PNG, worse yet) all the way to a complete ZIP of the raw design files. And then the raw design files could be for an expensive commercial product ... In other words, every single letter on the logo now encapsulates the same nebular problem that the whole logo does.

With respect to PDF, PNG and other widely used file/document formats, there is nothing nebulous with regard to openness. I get the impression that some confuse convenience with openness there...

Application-specifc file formats could become a restriction to openness if they present a barrier to access the information contained within the file (which is all to often the case, like with commercial software, or with software that is not available on the OS one chose, etc...). However, such issues could be addressed by offering a PDF (or PNG, or other commonly used "standard" file formats) version of schematics and PCB design -- not for the worse, but rather for the better of openness --, and whose presence or absence could be indicated somehow in the proposed OSHW logo...

[elgonzo]

How about something like this?



The teeth represent what is available as far as your source goes.

Is this circular Braille? 

[Brumby]

I was also thinking about outline/solid teeth.  The problem with this is twofold.

First is the position of the tooth will need to be either labelled or it's position having a defined 'value'.  Second is the problem of legibility at smaller scale.

I'm leaning more towards letters under the gear symbol.

[Jeff_Birt]

How many permutations are there to open source hardware/software? Can you capture even a fraction of that with the small possible number of permutations in a tiny logo? I might build a piece of hardware that has a part that is programmed by some freely available manufacturer specific software which is not open source. So my board is 'open' my firmware is 'open' but the tool needed to program it yourself is freely available nut not 'open'. I suspect the number of possibilities of defining an 'open' HW project are endless.

Given a large amount, or endless, number of possibilities in defining what 'open' means on project 'X' one still has to refer back to the project webpage to find out the details. The exact permutation of the logo still does not provide enough detail, nor could it ever. No matter how you try to fiddle with the logo, or specifications some guys will still throw a fit as it does not suit their own definition of 'open' - funny to me how the real 'open' zealots demand that you agree with them 100% that seems very close minded to me.