EEVblog #921 - Open Source Hardware Problems Solved!

[EEVblog]

There are a few big problems with Open Source Hardware and usage of the Gear logo. Dave has a new solution!

Download the new logo here:
https://www.eevblog.com/oshw/

[neta]

Hi. Longtime lurker taking on this topic as an excuse to come out.

Big thumbs up! 

The ambiguity of the current OSHW interpretation is actually a cause of concern in a project I'm working in.
There are plans to release the product under the "open hardware" umbrella; the problem we are facing with that, are the constraints that imposed upon the firmware IP as well, which would kinda cripple the revenue model as well.

Releasing an OSHW-compliant board with a crippled open source firmware or a non-OSHW one with a closed-source one, while formally correct, would not really solve any problem.

An OSHW logo with compliancy specification slapped on it: that would actually solve the problem.

CreativeCommons comes to mind. It was actually created to solve a similar problem in the same way as Dave proposes here, and proved to be the best, most flexible open licensing scheme ever: just slap some selectors on it!

[WattSekunde]

Hi Dave,
very nice and simple Idea. For more simplification I would embed the logo into a qr-code with a link to all the open source data.? Everyone could check with the smartphone if the open source data really is available.

OK, the sample QR is a quick one with the logo a bit to small... now it's better. 

[suku]

I really like the idea of using a QR code, but doing so you must ensure that there are no vias piercing the logo on the PCB, which can be tricky in my experience...  I'm not sure how big a QR stamp should be to be safe to read with older phones/lower quality cameras...

[Brumby]

I was also thinking of something that used the teeth of the gear logo - perhaps a colour code - but I do like the simple letter scheme and the alternate letter colour to indicate a level of openness

One suggestion I'd like to offer is for the use of more visible letters - by moving them more towards the centre they can be a bit larger.  Just an idea.


But, yes, more descriptive variants of the gear logo are essential.

[Tabs]

Adding a configurable gear logo is an idea I would definitely support. B one suggestion is to add a second character to each of Dave's suggestions. Such as an 's' for source. So you get SS, PS, ....
If this gets too hard to make clear on the silk then perhaps a '*' . Although in that case I would interpret a '*' as "read the fine print" - meaning non source. This leaves Dave's suggestions to mean with source.

[klh_js]

Great idea. I actually started working on a generator, I'll post it on github and share a link here.

[mxmarek]

Maybe just cut the teeth which are not compliant.

[apelly]

Shouldn't that have been a blab?

Anyway, that's too complicated by far.

1) Idendify and describe the attributes that can be opened.
2) Now you can simply sum the openness. ie. 5/15
3) start with an outline gear and fill from left to right, as in a meter needle, to the openness ratio.
4) annotate with creative commons codes ie. 5/15 CC BY-SA

[Tabs]

Maybe just cut the teeth which are not compliant.

This would be clearer than my suggestion. I've now got a mental image of lots open source kickstarter projects having to use a gear with no teeth. Ha.


Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk

[Tabs]

Shouldn't that have been a blab?

Anyway, that's too complicated by far.

1) Idendify and describe the attributes that can be opened.
2) Now you can simply sum the openness. ie. 5/15
3) start with an outline gear and fill from left to right, as in a meter needle, to the openness ratio.
4) annotate with creative commons codes ie. 5/15 CC BY-SA

Would the scoring system have to create a unique number for each combination since there would be more than one attribute combination that could score 5/15?

Use the decimal equivalent of a 5 bit binary number where each bit of the number represents an attribute?

Would prefer toothless gear idea above.

[apelly]

Would the scoring system have to create a unique number for each combination since there would be more than one attribute combination that could score 5/15?

Use the decimal equivalent of a 5 bit binary number where each bit of the number represents an attribute?

Crazy! It doesn't matter on the logo. The logo gives you a simple clue. If you give a shit after that you go and look at their docco.

It's a logo, not a specification. And it's 36mm². On a silk screen screen printed at 100dpi.

[Brumby]

Rather than toothless, perhaps have them a different colour - otherwise it looses the gear logo 'look'.

[EEVblog]

Hi. Longtime lurker taking on this topic as an excuse to come out.

Welcome!

An OSHW logo with compliancy specification slapped on it: that would actually solve the problem.
CreativeCommons comes to mind. It was actually created to solve a similar problem in the same way as Dave proposes here, and proved to be the best, most flexible open licensing scheme ever: just slap some selectors on it!

Yep, very similar to CC.
Many people are saying the same thing, so it seems to be resonating.

[Brumby]

It's a logo, not a specification. And it's 36mm². On a silk screen screen printed at 100dpi.

This is perhaps the single most misunderstood aspect of any graphic design - how the result translates into the scale that will be used.  36mm² is not very big at all.

Even in larger formats, small detail can get lost - and just makes the whole thing more difficult to 'take in'.  The KISS principle must be respected.

[Tabs]

Rather than toothless, perhaps have them a different colour - otherwise it looses the gear logo 'look'.

Green = attribute original source available
Amber = attribute source in PDF
Red= attribute not opened.

Making it visual on gear is my preferred option.
It could be argued that using a system  requiring people to look up which attributes created the total score would fail since projects have misused the logo when not opening the design to right level. If people researched the openness before supporting a project then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Making it a direct visual interpretation is still better IMHO.

Edit
How easy is it to have different colour silk on a PCB, would this affect cost due to additional process or is this more like a modern day printing stage that can change colour on the fly?

[EEVblog]

I was also thinking of something that used the teeth of the gear logo - perhaps a colour code - but I do like the simple letter scheme and the alternate letter colour to indicate a level of openness

The first time this idea popped into my head it was to use the teeth as either colour coded or missing, or numbered etc (e.g. "levels of openness"). But I ended up with letters that were more descriptive of each hardware requirement.

One suggestion I'd like to offer is for the use of more visible letters - by moving them more towards the centre they can be a bit larger.  Just an idea.

Underneath the logo would work just as well.
It could be fancy like the Creative Commons one, even an auto generator program that gave you the right logo based on your requirements.

[Smokey]

I'm going to be the kill joy here.... Everyone quit holding hands and singing open source kumbaya...
Who cares.. release something... don't release something.. "open source" .. "open hardware" ..  it's all just buzz words like  "Cooperative synergy".  There is no new "open hardware community" movement pushed forward because of a gear logo and some club guidelines.  More buzz words.  It's the same nerds that have always been here doing the same thing they have always been doing.  Go make your breakout boards and release them to the world and be happy, logo or not.
Dave is on the right track with the corporate ideas regarding releasing stuff.  Get off their back and be grateful you get anything, logo or not.  Anyone that expects a company to always give away all their stuff has never spent their own money developing an actual product.  R and D is an expensive investment.  Tektronix and a bunch of other equipment manufacturers didn't make a big stink about releasing essentially full documentation for their stuff back in the day.  They didn't need to make a "look what I did" logo and spew about it.  They did it because it added value to their products and it would get them more sales.  If you have a product and you think it would add value to release some aspects of the design then do it and move on.  You don't need anyone to dictate what you need to do or how you need to do it.  There doesn't need to be rules.  You don't need to join a club, especially when the club is an arbitrary formless cloud of internet opinion that can and will change their minds at will.
And don't be shocked if you give away your work and someone uses it to make a profit, pirated logo and all.  You had your chance to make money from your ideas, and you should have talked with a real lawyer before assuming that some guys on the internet knew what they were doing when they made their club license.
The only way any of this "open hardware" gear logo stuff adds any value at all is exactly what Dave described with an official, legally binding, fully defined (and not hopefully not asinine), set of rules and regulations with the most important part of it being the ability to actually follow through with the legal defense if there is a violation and enforce it in court.  Without that it's worthless and all the time spent complaining on the internet about improper use of a logo could have been used actually making something useful, starting a company, and making some money.... or give your stuff away... it's up to you. 
The act of sharing your work with others is awesome.  I fully support that as an end in itself.  Sticking on a logo, or having unenforceable rules, or cooperative synergy adds no extra value.

end rant.  Commence the open source kumbaya...

[EEVblog]

Great idea. I actually started working on a generator, I'll post it on github and share a link here.

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

[EEVblog]

Maybe just cut the teeth which are not compliant.

I originally thought of missing teeth but figured that would corrupt the logo. I think the descriptive letters are a better solution.

[EEVblog]

Who cares..

A lot of people do, like it or not.
You don't have to care of course, and that's fine.

If you have a product and you think it would add value to release some aspects of the design then do it and move on.  You don't need anyone to dictate what you need to do or how you need to do it.  There doesn't need to be rules. 

And that's why I think this new logo works. Get rid of the idealistic everything must be open philosophy and let people just do what they want to do, but at the same time offer a nice logo to easy show what they are doing at a glance. There is value in having a common format like that.
 

[Tabs]

One draw back with the configurable logo is the number of permutations especially when coding original source or PDF for each attribute.

Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk

[apelly]

So, under this logo, simply put the writing

2/7 CC BY-NC

or whatever license you choose.

edit: I lifted the logo from http://www.oshwa.org/open-source-hardware-logo/ without permission.

[EEVblog]

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

[EEVblog]

So, under this logo, simply put the writing
2/7 CC BY-NC
or whatever license you choose.
edit: I lifted the logo from http://www.oshwa.org/open-source-hardware-logo/ without permission.

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