[p2p-research] open source hardware summit debrief by liquidwares

[Michel Bauwens]

via  Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> Oct 02 09:26PM -0500 ^

open source hardware summit debrief by liquidwares
http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-source-hardware-summit-debrief.html

"""
A week ago I went down to NYC and spent a few hours at the Open Source
Hardware Summit. I sat on a panel and discussed with a number of
pretty smart individuals, the merits of Open Source legal constructs
and what Open Source Hardware is and isn't. A big, heart-felt thank
you from me goes out to the organizers, sponsors, and creators of the
summit.

Of course, there were so many more thoughts running through my mind
than I could possibly share with the group, and I didn't want to
monopolize the speaking time, so I took lots of notes. Here are a few
of the notes I jotted down:

-What is the relationship between open source rights and intellectual
property protection provided by the government?

-Is an open source design patentable? Is it copyrightable? Is it
trademarkable?

-Open source hardware designs are getting licensed to hardware
builders for rates around 5-10%, yet patented technologies have
concepts like compulsory rates of 3%. Does that mean that patented
designs might actually be cheaper than open source?

-Does an open source design have to be recursive and/or fractal? Can
you have an open source design that uses proprietary integrated
circuit chips? Can you use an open source circuit in a proprietary,
closed device?

-Many of the successful open source hardware projects have in common
that they rigorously protect one aspect of their business: arduino
gives away the board but keeps the brand and trademark, beagleboard
gives away the design by keeps the chip gate array design, bug labs
gives away the schematics but restricts the inter-module snap-connect
interface, liquidware gives away the hardware at cost, but keeps the
analytical algorithms (e.g. you can buy a "military grade" IXM, but
you can't get the code that turns it into a --CLASSIFIED--) Exactly
:-)

-What do you use to base an open source hardware license on? Does it
start from a contract that restricts freedom to operate, and use, or
does it look more like wills and testament document, where it gives
away rights and freedoms?

-Is the goal of open source to provide freedoms? If so, why does it
need a license or contract to restrict rights?

-What is the relationship between the drivers and motivators of
hackers, and the objective of a license? Could you have had open
source software without the GNU?

-What came first: the license, or open source code?

-What is the "source" part of open source hardware? Does hardware have
a standard "source" (no)? How long will it take to get there (a long
time)?

All in all, I think - as always - I'm left with many more questions
than answers, but I think that's the point. I don't really know why I
do open source hardware, I don't even have to know what it is. But
somehow, it feels good to make and produce open electronics, open
source code examples that control those electronics, and devices that
are in general far more accessible and hackable than previous
generations of hardware.

So I'll keep doing "open source hardware" even though I have no idea
what it means, whether the term carries any substance, because... it
just feels right!
"""


-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101003/06697167/attachment.html>