Copyleft OP2?

[3_bit]

As you may know, there are VERY FEW copyleft devices in the world. I was thinking that if we were to have the OP2 be copyleft, it might attract some more attention, being an open-source device that anyone with a large amount of resources could build. It could *TECHNICALLY* be DIY.

 

[sebt3]

loll

 

[_wb_]

Why not? If competing cheap crappy Chinese knock-offs would be a problem, you'd think that they had copied the current Pandora by now, right? But they are probably not interested in small niche stuff.

What is more important to me is this:

http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/topic/14049-respects-your-freedom-certification/

 

[sebt3]

Why not?

It could *TECHNICALLY* be DIY.

Tell me how a 5 to 7 layers boards can be DIY ? I've seen 2 layers being technically DIY (and that's allready pushing), but 5 come on.

At this point what are the use for being copyleft (beside offering your well paid design to competitor) ?

so yeah, loll

 

[thatgui]

As you may know, there are VERY FEW copyleft devices in the world. I was thinking that if we were to have the OP2 be copyleft, it might attract some more attention, being an open-source device that anyone with a large amount of resources could build. It could *TECHNICALLY* be DIY.

As ED won't design the whole P2 all by himself, it depends on how contractors see this. I could think of ED getting back to DaveC regarding (part of) the controls (e. g. DPAD), as there are only a few that complained about them so far. But as far as I know, DaveC holds the copyright of his design and OP is only a licensee. I don't think DaveC as any interest in changing that fact.

 

[ghostpatch]

I'm more interested in board CAD files making it easier to design your own casing.

What do you think about let's say a promise to release the CAD files etc. under FOSS licence when the device isn't sold anymore? That way it couldn't hurt sales. Or we could buy those files through donations. Like "we give you x$ and you'll realease it under FOSS".

 

[Grench]

So - what you're saying is that you devalue Michael Weston and Dave C's labor.  Their work and output is worth so little that the results should be given away to people who had no investment in the project?  Should ED and his investors simply give away everything remotely proprietary about the device and it's designs and the hard development costs it takes to get there?

If that were the case, there would probably be no Pandora successor - and likely no world economy.  The real world doesn't work that way.

 

[God Ginrai]

So - what you're saying is that you devalue Michael Weston and Dave C's labor.  Their work and output is worth so little that the results should be given away to people who had no investment in the project?  Should ED and his investors simply give away everything remotely proprietary about the device and it's designs and the hard development costs it takes to get there?

If that were the case, there would probably be no Pandora successor - and likely no world economy.  The real world doesn't work that way.

Ok... that's a little harsh. Open Hardware is a thing.

However, I don't believe it is a good idea for the P2, so I would not be supporting that.

-God Ginrai

 

[ghostpatch]

@Grench

me? nope. I think its the opposite. The suggestion I'm trying to make is. If they are okey with it, we could collect money and pay them to release (or partly release (not the nubs for example)) their files making them common property. Of course I'm assuming they don't earn money with their intellectual property at that point. So it would be a win win situation. Again, only when they like the idea.

Edit: maybe its not clear: I'm talking about the Pandora, at the time when it has been replaced with it's successor and so on

 

[3_bit]

So - what you're saying is that you devalue Michael Weston and Dave C's labor.  Their work and output is worth so little that the results should be given away to people who had no investment in the project?  Should ED and his investors simply give away everything remotely proprietary about the device and it's designs and the hard development costs it takes to get there?

If that were the case, there would probably be no Pandora successor - and likely no world economy.  The real world doesn't work that way.

It's not like There'd be no potential for donations. Ubuntu isn't copyleft, but it is free. There's plenty of free software, including copyleft software. But that's off-topic.

 

[Exophase]

Tell me how a 5 to 7 layers boards can be DIY ? I've seen 2 layers being technically DIY (and that's allready pushing), but 5 come on.

At this point what are the use for being copyleft (beside offering your well paid design to competitor) ?

so yeah, loll

Possibly more like 8+ layers, and with a bunch of BGAs, one of them possibly with PoP.. maybe DIY if that means spending a ton of money to have it fabbed and assembled by someone else.

I do think there wouldn't be that much commercial risk to making the design open though. It's just that niche, no one seems interested in making a similar sort of device. Ripoff companies wouldn't be that interested in the design to begin with since it wouldn't be tailored around dirt cheap parts. And if you make it open hardware you'd get at least some additional sales from people who are into that sort of thing.

We don't actually know that ED is interested in hiring MWeston or DaveC at this point. Whoever designs it should be properly employed for their work. Part of the reason why DaveC and MWeston retained ownership of their designs is because Craig couldn't pay them that much for it. I hope they negotiated a good payment for iCP2 upfront.

 

[comradekingu]

Grench:

Concerning the world economy, its not like daveC is paid (at all?) that much for his case design and that mweston couldnt have found more economically viable ventures than designing boards for OP. In the sense that the linux kernel is available to us, no, the general way the world economy works, is not only detrimental to our project, its old, defunct and we dont qualify in terms of size. It makes much more sense to do it in a community manner, free of many of the constraints set by the world economy. The OP of today is pretty much the opposite of trends, in that its community based, flexible funding, donation driven, very close to metal, same company behind almost all of it, from production to customer service.

 

[Binky]

How about releasing full schematics but not PCB layout?

Or just the case design?

 

[Grench]

How about buying one, taking it apart, purchasing a dial caliper and making your own measurements?

The question is about the same as walking into a store, picking something out, walking to the register and asking if you can please have the original designer's pattern it was based on for free please - then walking out without buying anything.

 

[Morn]

I'm more interested in board CAD files making it easier to design your own casing.

What do you think about let's say a promise to release the CAD files etc. under FOSS licence when the device isn't sold anymore? That way it couldn't hurt sales. Or we could buy those files through donations. Like "we give you x$ and you'll realease it under FOSS".

I remember somebody (not sure Craigx, MW or ED) already promising to reveal current designs at some point they decide it's safe for their business.

 

[Binky]

How about buying one, taking it apart, purchasing a dial caliper and making your own measurements?

That would be very fiddly

The question is about the same as walking into a store, picking something out, walking to the register and asking if you can please have the original designer's pattern it was based on for free please - then walking out without buying anything.

You haven't really shown an argument against the above.

• The chance of competing products being built using the original designs is slim, due to the obscurity and complexity of the device and the incompleteness of information given.
• Few people would have a use for incomplete plans for a device they don't own.
• Releasing detailed specs opens the way for a host of supporting products and fan-made improvements, which can increase device sales.
• Declaring hardware "open source" could be a great publicity move in the niche occupied by the pandora.

 

[God Ginrai]

• lt using the original designs is slim, due to the obscurity and complexity of the device and the incompleteness of information given.

• Few people would have a use for incomplete plans for a device they don't own.

So what's the point in releasing anything in the first place?

• Releasing detailed specs opens the way for a host of supporting products and fan-made improvements, which can increase device sales.

You don't need detailed specs to hack your hardware. Support policies that allow for you to hack certain parts and still receive support are normally more useful to hardware hackers.

• Declaring hardware "open source" could be a great publicity move in the niche occupied by the pandora.

Because that worked so well for OpenMoko...

-God Ginrai

 

[comradekingu]

Copyleft is to my knowledge something concerned with copyright law, that is different from patent law. Maybe what you are suggesting is open hardware? Its an intersting discussion nontheless, as the open hardware term doesnt seem to be 100% ratified and final. We could say its in its infancy.