Power, Memory and Schematics

[Letalis Sonus]

The Pyra is not Open Hardware, was never announced to be Open Hardware and due to its necessary usage of proprietary firmware/drivers will never be Open Hardware as defined by the OSHWA.

 

[FaeMinx]

Man... I hope the next update is soon...

 

[comradekingu]

The thing is that people want to see libre software, as it applies to software, in a hardware license.
That is not quite how it works, like software protection of published works didnt work before 1974, but people are doing it anyway.

And we are repeating every facet of how public domain software became free software, as in freedom.

Down to vague naming schemes, and non-commercial clauses.

Nobody can define what open hardware is beyond open schematics to best efforts, the only requirement of -zingu open hardware. What people want is some reproduce-ability and some protection.

"Open hardware" is not a license, it is a broad term covering many such attempts.

The Pyra is not OSHWA-open hardware, because it is not licensed as such, it is still open hardware, because it qualifies. Look at what the openPandora did. You got the schematics there too.
There is a license to go along with it. You don't need a governing body that to tell you how to publish your works, potentially charging fees to do so. They are all trying to define something within current law in an international or local jurisdiction, or trying to make it sound as good as possible. Same deal with software. Different laws for the time being.

There are many definers of open hardware, and since they all differ, and it is a vague term, you cant claim OSHWA (from 2012) defines open hardware any
more than open source can be a legally binding/defined term meaning free software, because it does not compute.

The Pyra for one, doesn't _need_ proprietary drivers. You can run without the Wi-Fi chip and powerVR just fine. I have tried running my pandora like that with Pandian, it works.
Two, that isnt actually how the OSHWA license works. It doesnt require free software drivers. And firmware isnt copyright law btw, its patent law. Which is why the GPLv3 doesnt cover it.

(You may be thinking of is the RYF license (?), which is a "everything free sofware" deal. Where i think meaninful implications on privacy are outlawed in firmware.)

http://certificate.oshwa.org/

2. Ensure that all of the creator’s own contributions to an open source product using the certification mark are shared as open source in accordance with the agreement and these requirements.

3. Ensure all parts within the creator’s control are open source. Use best efforts to distinguish any third-party proprietary components. Third-party components such as chips must have fully accessible and shareable datasheets for hardware to be considered open source.

>creators own contributions shared as open source, according to license
>All parts within the creators control are open source.
​

Ok, so what do they mean with "open source"?

>Fully shareable datasheets for hardware​

This is definitely the requirement for the contested area.

Datasheets are not down-to-the-wire schematics, nor is it a requirement of code.

So i think you need an NDA on some TI stuff. The Pyra, lest we forget, is not Tied to a TI processor. Getting a new moduleboard, this could all change.

The “Creator Contribution” Requirement

As noted above, in order to be certified under this program all parts, designs, code, and rights under the control of the creator must be made open according to the open source hardware definition hosted by OSHWA. However, that does not necessarily mean that the entire project must or will be open source. If the creators used third party closed components outside of their control, they are unable – and are therefore not required – to open souce those components. While it is strongly prefered to use open components when possible, OSHWA recognizes the reality that this is not always possible. The “creator contribution” requirement is an intentionally flexible one, designed to be applicable to individuals working alone and multinational corporations.

> All creator controlled stuff goes under OSHWA definition of open source
>Not a requirement for the whole
>Third party components outside of their control (bingo)
>Not required to have open source of those
>Wish for better marketplace, but pragmatic nature.

It is so fresh that it has a spelling error in it… Supposed to be "preferred".

It is important that we read and understand these licenses. None of us are lawyers, but we can do better than assume about them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAPR_Open_Hardware_License#Noncommercial_license

Again, I'm not saying this particular attempt is the _most_ relevant one, im not even saying i like it, quite to the contrary. It was thrown at the wall, it predictably did not stick.
What I am saying is that it is within the realms of open hardware, just like non-commercial open source is open source. That is a very important distinction between what things mean, what we say, and how it works in terms of law.

That is relevant to the goals of libre software, and my idea of what ideal hardware is.

 

[sulu]

Ok, so you're not going to deliver references that support your opinion and I'm not going to accept that opinion as fact as long as you don't reference it.
This won't lead us anywhere. Let's just agree to disagree! I'll just ask you, that you'll make it very clear in the future, that your opinion is just that: Your opinion.

 

[ClockworkCoder]

Man... I hope the next update is soon...

And that it won't be thwarted by swathes of arguments on licencing semantics. I only visit here to feel the excitement and positivity while waiting for the good news...

 

[TrashyMG]

Licensing crazed people are the worst.

 

[comradekingu]

Sulu: What references are you lacking?

 

[kabaiakh]

 

[Kippykip]

Oh for fucks sake this is still going?

Licensing crazed people are the worst.

I know right? Also mate if you have the powers to split threads, please do for the greater good!

 

[ible]

seriously, keep it confined here, and then people know not to visit this thread instead of a new one

 

[rygD]

seriously, keep it confined here, and then people know not to visit this thread instead of a new one

If that were true we wouldn't have so many threads about it.

 

[spud42]

 

[kabaiakh]

 

[WizardStan]

Sulu: What references are you lacking?

They're liooking for some governing body that officially defines "open hardware- the way you are using it, similar in the way that OSHWA has defined it.
The problem with that, of course, is that there is no such governing body and there never will be because there doesn't need to be and it would only lead to ruin: OSHWA came first so they are the leaders as far as people like sulu are concerned.
The actual problem with that, and the reason I suspect you keep bringing up software licenses, is that because they were first they were free to define "open hardware" however they wanted and then effectively write it into law as it were. The supplementary problem with that being that they've defined "open hardware" differently from "open software". Open software and Free software are different terms for very good reasons.What OSHWA has done is defined open hardware as the hardware equivalent of "free as in freedom" with no regard of the nuance between previously established "open" and "free" terms: either something is "open" and gives all the rights outlined, or it is lumped in with entirely closed off hardware.
In my mind this is an incredibly dangerous distinction to fail to make.
The legend is that RMS started the open source movement after getting frustrated with a bug in a printer driver: if he had had access to the source for the driver he could have fixed it; if the source were "open like a book" then he could read it and improve upon it."Free" software was eventually defined as a superset of that, giving you the right to then also distribute your changes.
Then we look at hardware: for hardware to be "open" you must also be able to sell it? That doesn't even make sense linguistically.
But more to the point, this is dangerous because it's lacking the distinction of things you can modify vs things you can't. The future of hardware is already here, vendors are putting their hardware behind DRM and proprietary systems. The days where you could legally repair your own stove or TV may be coming to an end, and this is why I consider OSHWA's definition so dangerous: there is no longer a simple term to differentiate between hardware you can modify and hardware you cannot.If EvilDragon releases a handheld and says "here's everything about the hardware, everything you need to know to repair and improve upon it if you have the inclination" there is no longer a word for just that right which separates it from a Nintendo handheld: because you cannot sell the documentation (the hardware itself can be sold, the license only restricts the specs) it may as well be defined as closed and proprietary.
And this is literally the only thing I'm going to say on the subject.

 

[ible]

very well said. "open", like "freedom", has multiple levels (in the software community as well as the hardware community). i'd honestly consider a software license myself which restricts the sale of the software i've created -- i want people to know it's free. wouldn't stop me from selling hardware with it included, though.. at any rate, not things i've thought about fully.

but it is important to note, as WizardStan says, that OSHWA doesn't define hardware openness, just like FSF doesn't define software freedom. that's up to you to define and appreciate, wherever you find it, in whatever measure.

 

[shaddim]

Open software and Free software are different terms for very good reasons.What OSHWA has done is defined open hardware as the hardware equivalent of "free as in freedom" with no regard of the nuance between previously established "open" and "free" terms: either something is "open" and gives all the rights outlined, or it is lumped in with entirely closed off hardware.
In my mind this is an incredibly dangerous distinction to fail to make.
.

If fully agree that extremistic positions and licenses might have the worst impact on any kinds of open/free ecosystems. (e.g. see the downfall of the copyleft ecosystem due to the splitting push of the FSF with the GPLv3)

Therefore I liked Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons and their approach with the CC license spectrum so much (including NC options which still allows remixing, the original goal of Lessig): pragmatic and non-repulsive, offering options, encouraging, not enforcing "freedom" (like the FSF).

there is no longer a simple term to differentiate between hardware you can modify and hardware you cannot
.

Tthere was no clear name before right? The goal of the CC was also to have finally clear reliable license(s) and to some degree with it terminology for such use cases. On which they succceded: CC BY-NC-SA, (and all above) full-fill your need. Ok, we could grieve now that it is not one or that is no well established name for the "open for repair group", but I think the "remixable" bracket fits here well enough, it is an subaspect.

Being available "open", while not under free/open license at all & therefore fully proprietary, offers already according to Bernstein many benefits for society and users: repairs, adaptions for personal use and not being orphaned / lost forever. About DRM and the right to fix your own stuff: John Deer and tractors... the horrible future in general?

So, indeed, the situation with the Pyra schematic license is not as bad as it could be or the complaints might indicate. (From my perspective the main problem was and is the original undefindness what we could expect, if this license would have been clear from the beginning it would have been fine.)

 

[comradekingu]

OSHWA did not come first, far from it. They are one taker of many to the open hardware nomenclature. They are not in any way shape or form trying to claim that term for themselves or do open as in anything but the open hardware we have had for ages.
Predating btw, the term open hardware.

The reason we have it, and why a sentiment like this, is because of the hacker ethos. No more closely does that align with anything but user freedom. Which is why free software, if a bit of a duality in its English meaning, is a defined term that makes sense.

--------------

The only thing copyleft splits is people who can substantiate an argument and those who cant.

It takes olympic level mental gymnastic artistry to speak of open as something different than open license, while conflating open as in license with free.
To claim this double-think "open" is different from open, or free, in that it must be fully proprietary, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what proprietary means.

Things can _not_ be fully proprietary, if they are open in any sense.

Funny how the Creative commons doesn't like its own non-commercial license.
Funny nr.2 about who fought John Deere.

They used btw, digital millennium provisions of copyright law to support their claim. You linked to something from the 90s saying people should be somehow worried about free software.

The day reverse engineering Microsoft products being as easy as exercising your right to compile, patch study etc free software, was not with NT 4.0, and _certainly_ not today. Even if it were, you wouldnt have anywhere to apply it. MS owns their products, they are the sole proprietor, and they change it at their whim. Your patches are cool beans when the whole OS is a surveilance station.

Edit: Read your other link. I admire the faith of someone being able to go a whole page without a single argument. Everything can for the case of argument be shifted against the position of the writer. And it would make just as much sense. Glorious ending "But if GPL continues down its current path, will it be around in 10 years?"

Written in 2007. 2017, year of the unsubstantiated blogger.

 

[shaddim]

Funny how the Creative commons doesnt like its own non-commercial license.

Well, it was not Lessig, it was this group (with FSF influence) after Lessig.

EDIT: this is the required read by Mako hill https://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html

Glorious ending "But if GPL continues down its current path, will it be around in 10 years?"

The argument is here, the GPL losses mindshares since 2007, permissive licensing won, the GPLv3 fragmented the landscape, as prophesized also by the kernel people. (Disclaimer, I'm not happy about the downfall of the copyleft ecosystem...this could have been prevented in 2007 with some pragmatism of the FSF/RMS)

 

[Letalis Sonus]

Things can _not_ be fully proprietary, if they are open in any sense.

Of course they can. Create something, publish everything, don't chose any license, EULA or what have you - things default to basic copyright law, you remain the owner of everything and don't grant implied rights to anybody. Boom, fully open and yet fully proprietary.

"Proprietary" is a term that relates to ownership, it does not cover whether something is open or closed in any sense - that's more of a common assumption because proprietary stuff often is closed.

 

[WizardStan]

They are not in any way shape or form trying to claim that term for themselves

Really? From the name "Open Source Hardware Association" I would suspect that they are an association that brands itself exclusively on the term "open source hardware", and their about and history pages seem to agree, but if you know otherwise feel free to correct me.
By the way, did you know the term "open hardware" is trademarked? From 1997 by Bruce Perens, and just kind of carried on through the various organizations that have evolved from his original certification. So if they aren't trying to claim a term exclusively, why trademark it?
edit: to be clear, that was a rhetorical question. I know there's a lot of reasons to trademark something. It was intended to make you question your original assertion that they are NOT trying to claim the term despite the evidence that they are.

Predating btw, the term open hardware.

Yes, that was kind of exactly the point, that we've had "open hardware" as basically everyone understood it for a very long time; even had a certification program that defined open hardware as hardware that came with documentation and the right to modify. There wasn't originally any requirement of redistribution rights. The earliest mention I can find of that particular definition, equating "open hardware" with what we would refer to as "free software" is a wired article from 2010.