open hard warte presentation

7/28/2019 Open Hard Warte Presentation

1/23

13 open source companies( OPEN SOURCE AND MONEY------ CONCLUSION) EXAMPLE---- A gorgeous, homemade time machine running on open source hardware (SHOW

VIDEO)

EXAMPLE----DIY Graphing Calculator Is Built From Open Source Hardware"Ahomebrewed graphing calculator called Open SciCal promises to put a powerful

machine built entirely from open source hardware into the pockets of..."

QUESTIONS-----------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:arduinogives away the board but keeps the brand and

trademark,beagleboardgives away the design by keeps the chip gate array design, bug

labs gives away the schematics but restricts the inter-module snap-connect interface,

liquidwaregives 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
http://wiizeels.com/gadgets/diy-graphing-calculator-is-built-from-open-source-hardwarehttp://wiizeels.com/gadgets/diy-graphing-calculator-is-built-from-open-source-hardwarehttp://wiizeels.com/gadgets/diy-graphing-calculator-is-built-from-open-source-hardwarehttp://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/ARD/Arduino+Duemilanovehttp://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/ARD/Arduino+Duemilanovehttp://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/ARD/Arduino+Duemilanovehttp://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/BB-C4/BeagleBoard+C4http://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/BB-C4/BeagleBoard+C4http://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/BB-C4/BeagleBoard+C4http://www.liquidware.com/shophttp://www.liquidware.com/shophttp://www.liquidware.com/shophttp://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/BB-C4/BeagleBoard+C4http://www.liquidware.com/shop/show/ARD/Arduino+Duemilanovehttp://wiizeels.com/gadgets/diy-graphing-calculator-is-built-from-open-source-hardware


2/23

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!

ANSWERS ubuntu-distsaid... I love the questions. It made me ask myself "What do I want from open

source software?" Many things, but mainly, to be free of vendor lock-in. If

my car breaks, I can take it to any mechanic. If I had to take it back to the

manufacturer then where would I take it if the manufacturer ceased to do

business? I would be forced to buy a new car and that sucks. Software

doesn't break in the same way but I still want to be free to change it to suit

my changing needs. Then I asked myself "What do I want from open source

hardware?". The same: to be free of vendor lock-in. When I buy filters for my

vacuum cleaner, I want to buy from an open market. For that, all the

information required to manufacture those filters needs to be freely

available: Dimensions, materials, details of suppliers and of contacts at those

suppliers. I want detailed easy-to-understand instructions on how to

disassemble, service and re-assemble my vacuum cleaner. Instructions that

were written by the people who knows exactly how it should be done

properly: the people who created it.

What do you want?

October 3, 2010 1:47 PM Mattsaid... That's a really insightful way to think it through. I think what I'm looking for

is people to hack with. I like hacking stuff by myself, but it's more fun with

others. I like tearing down and remixing hardware in new ways that are

unexpected, and I like to idea of being able to draw arbitrary lines through a

pre-conceived piece of electronic hardware that someone else designed, and

that I bought, and turn it into something else...

I also like the hacker spirit. It's about challenging the mainstream view, and

sometimes about playful competition amongst hackers for who can push the

limits and boundaries further. And when someone else has done something

creative, I like to examine it, reverse engineer the approach, and add that to

my "library" so to speak.
http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-source-hardware-summit-debrief.html?showComment=1286138821115#c2210245685053658402http://www.blogger.com/profile/17939917648960591808http://www.blogger.com/profile/17939917648960591808http://www.blogger.com/profile/17939917648960591808http://www.blogger.com/profile/17939917648960591808http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-source-hardware-summit-debrief.html?showComment=1286138821115#c2210245685053658402


3/23

So I suppose one vision for open source hardware is the social creation of

this library of hardware hacks. Software libraries are relatively easy to

create... I want to build the same thing for hardware.

October 14, 2010 12:41 AM marvelouspersonasaid... I'm afraid you've got the BUG Labs bit wrong:

"bug labs gives away the schematics but restricts the inter-module snap-

connect interface"

We at BUG open everything we have the ability to open, including our

custom-designed BMI interface:

http://community.buglabs.net/forums/7-BUGbase/topics/202-BMI-Interface-

Details-Available EXAMPLE..New Arduino Mega 2560 in stock!{PICTURE) WHAT IS OPEN HARDWARE ,REALLY??

I was reading through Phil's recent article profiling tons of different open

source projects over at theOpen Source hardware guide at Make Blog, and it

got me thinking... what is open source, really? It reminded me of a recent

conversation I had withTom Igoe about why Open Source hardware is so

much harder to define than software was and how he and the rest of the

Arduino team wrestled with it. And that time I had dinner with Chris, Mike

andPaul Badger , and talked about how Paul thinks about "Open Source"

with his students.

Phil's article also reminded me of conversations I had withKarim Lakhani

about the topic of open source collaboration, networks, and peer production.

In the software world, it's relatively straightforward, because source code is

infinitely replicable, easy to share, can be edited by almost anyone (willing to

learn the programming language and owning a PC). But on the hardware

side, it's not easy to define academically, which is no help to guys like me

actually trying to make open source stuff!

Coincidentally, I just gave a presentation to some students up in Boston from

MIT and Harvard (and a few stragglers) who were interested in Open Source

hardware. The forum was dedicated to open source concepts and topics, and

how to get started with your own open source project. I decided to meet with

some professors ahead of time, to try to get a more theoretical approach to
http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-source-hardware-summit-debrief.html?showComment=1287042102752#c1538315667083364377http://www.blogger.com/profile/03085422575160113281http://www.blogger.com/profile/03085422575160113281http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2010/10/14/arduino-mega-2560-atmega2560-assembled-mega/http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2010/10/14/arduino-mega-2560-atmega2560-assembled-mega/http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/_draft_open_source_hardwa.htmlhttp://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/_draft_open_source_hardwa.htmlhttp://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/_draft_open_source_hardwa.htmlhttp://www.tigoe.net/http://www.tigoe.net/http://moderndevice.com/http://moderndevice.com/http://moderndevice.com/http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facEmId=klakhanihttp://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facEmId=klakhanihttp://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facEmId=klakhanihttp://moderndevice.com/http://www.tigoe.net/http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/11/_draft_open_source_hardwa.htmlhttp://www.adafruit.com/blog/2010/10/14/arduino-mega-2560-atmega2560-assembled-mega/http://www.blogger.com/profile/03085422575160113281http://www.blogger.com/profile/03085422575160113281http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-source-hardware-summit-debrief.html?showComment=1287042102752#c1538315667083364377


4/23

the problem. In those discussions, I got some interesting responses and of

course some difficult questions I hadn't thought of before:

-Is hardware "open source" because you can change it, make it yourself,

expand it, or customize it? What actions can I do with an open source device

that I can't do with a proprietary one?

-What precisely about the hardware needs to be open? PCB traces? Etching

chemicals and fiber boards? Transistors and gate arrays? How low down the

hardware stack does it need to go before you call it open?

-How do you compare two different projects to each other? Can you ever say

one project is more or less open than another? Is "open sourceness" a binary

attribute, or can it be a spectrum?

-What is the goal of open source hardware, and why do we need more of it?

-Where does someone go to get started making their own open source

hardware?

-If someone builds a project, what decisions do they make that leads them to

open source vs. proprietary vs. closed?

-What the analogy of "source" mean to hardware? Is it figurative or literal? Is

it the firmware, is it the logic inside a discrete IC? Is it the synthesized VHDL

core in a microprocessor?

-Can something ever be open source if it includes proprietary, closed

components like professionally built microprocessors? Is "open sourceness"

in hardware a recursive attribute, like it is in GNU software?

So my first conclusion was: there's a lot more to think about here than I first

thought - I knew it was hard, but this is a lot to bite off for one presentation.

My second observation was: it's easy to overlook a lot of what makes

something really feel "open". I think I went into the discussions thinking

something could be either "open source" or not, but I left with the feeling

that open source was more fuzzy than I'd originally thought. In fact,

someone recommended that I read up on some of Richard Stallman's original

posts on open source, where he ran into many of these same questions -

maybe he'd have some answers.


5/23

In any case, I wrapped up all of my thoughts, and put together a

presentation, which I've uploaded here for anyone to read through. I tried to

capture the different opinions about open source hardware, and profiled a

few projects I'm involved with, in order to propose a definition of what "open

source hardware" really means. This it the first time I've used slideshare, so

I hope it works!

What Is Open Source Hardware?View SlideSharepresentationorUploadyour own. (tags:opensource)

Thanks a lot for all the feedback and ideas! And let me know if you want a copy of

the presentation...

OSHW draft

From Definition of Free Cultural Works

Jump to:navigation,search

This page hosts the current proposed Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Draft Statement ofPrinciples and Definition. The statement of principles is a high-level overview of the ideals of

open-source hardware. The definition is an attempt to apply those ideals to a standard by whichto evaluate licenses for hardware designs.

The widely endorsed definition draft 0.3 is onthis page;older drafts are also available.

If you would like to propose changes to the statement of principles or definition by editing this

page, please do so with extreme care and consideration; this draft definition has been craftedwith the input of many individuals with diverse backgrounds and points of view. (And, please

edit while signed in, not anonymously.)

[edit] Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of

Principles (Draft)Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can

study, modify, distribute, make and sell the design or hardware based on that design. The

hardware's source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format formaking modifications to it. Ideally, open source hardware uses readily-available components and

materials, standard processes, open infrastructure, unrestricted content, and open-source design

tools to maximize the ability of individuals to make and use hardware. Open source hardware
http://www.slideshare.net/inthebitz/what-is-open-source-hardware-presentation?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/inthebitz/what-is-open-source-hardware-presentation?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/inthebitz/what-is-open-source-hardware-presentation?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/inthebitz/what-is-open-source-hardware-presentation?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/inthebitz/what-is-open-source-hardware-presentation?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/upload?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/upload?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/upload?type=powerpointhttp://slideshare.net/tag/openhttp://slideshare.net/tag/openhttp://slideshare.net/tag/sourcehttp://slideshare.net/tag/sourcehttp://slideshare.net/tag/sourcehttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#column-onehttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#column-onehttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#column-onehttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#searchInputhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#searchInputhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#searchInputhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHWhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHWhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHWhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=OSHW_draft&action=edit&section=1http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=OSHW_draft&action=edit&section=1http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=OSHW_draft&action=edit&section=1http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHWhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#searchInputhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_draft#column-onehttp://slideshare.net/tag/sourcehttp://slideshare.net/tag/openhttp://www.slideshare.net/upload?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/inthebitz/what-is-open-source-hardware-presentation?type=powerpointhttp://www.slideshare.net/inthebitz/what-is-open-source-hardware-presentation?type=powerpoint


6/23

gives people the freedom to control their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging

commerce through the open exchange of designs.

[edit] Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Definition (Draft

Version 0.4)OSHW Draft Definition 0.4 is based on theOpen Source Definitionfor Open Source Software

anddraft OSHW definition 0.3. The definition is derived from theOpen Source Definition, whichwas created by Bruce Perens and the Debian developers as the Debian Free Software

Guidelines. Videos and Documentation of the Opening Hardware workshop which kicked off the

below definition are availablehere.Please join the conversation about the definitionhere

Introduction

Open Source Hardware (OSHW) is a term for tangible artifacts -- machines, devices, or other

physical things -- whose design has been released to the public in such a way that anyone canmake, modify, distribute, and use those things. This definition is intended to help provideguidelines for the development and evaluation of licenses for Open Source Hardware.

It is important to note that hardware is different from software in that physical resources mustalways be committed for the creation of physical goods. Accordingly, persons or companies

producing items ("products") under an OSHW license have an obligation not to imply that such

products are manufactured, sold, warrantied, or otherwise sanctioned by the original designerand also not to make use of any trademarks owned by the original designer.

The distribution terms of Open Source Hardware must comply with the following criteria:

1. Documentation

The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow

modification and distribution of the design files. Where documentation is not furnished with the

physical product, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining this documentation for nomore than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without

charge. The documentation must include design files in the preferred format for making changes,

for example the native file format of a CAD program. Deliberately obfuscated design files arenot allowed. Intermediate forms analogous to compiled computer code -- such as printer-ready

copper artwork from a CAD program -- are not allowed as substitutes. The license may require

that the design files are provided in fully-documented, open format(s).

2. Scope

The documentation for the hardware must clearly specify what portion of the design, if not all, is

being released under the license. The license may restrict the bill of materials to components

which are generic, open-source, or otherwise non-proprietary. Alternatively, the design mayincorporate the use of non-open components, for example if a manufacturer releases the design
http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=OSHW_draft&action=edit&section=2http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=OSHW_draft&action=edit&section=2http://opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://www.opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://www.opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://www.opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://www.eyebeam.org/projects/Opening-hardwarehttp://www.eyebeam.org/projects/Opening-hardwarehttp://www.eyebeam.org/projects/Opening-hardwarehttp://openhardwaresummit.org/forumhttp://openhardwaresummit.org/forumhttp://openhardwaresummit.org/forumhttp://openhardwaresummit.org/forumhttp://www.eyebeam.org/projects/Opening-hardwarehttp://www.opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_older_draftshttp://opensource.org/docs/osdhttp://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=OSHW_draft&action=edit&section=2


7/23

for a development board that incorporates a proprietary integrated circuit, provided that the

license does not require the use of these non-open components.

3. Necessary Software

If the hardware released under the license requires software, embedded or otherwise, to operateproperly and fulfill its essential functions, then the license may require that one of the following

conditions are met:

a) The interfaces are sufficiently documented such that it could reasonably be considered

straightforward to write open source software that allows the device to operate properly andfulfill its essential functions. For example, this may include the use of detailed signal timing

diagrams or pseudocode to clearly illustrate the interface in operation.

b) The necessary software is released under an OSI-approved open source license.

4. Derived Works

The license shall allow modifications and derived works, and shall allow them to be distributed

under the same terms as the license of the original hardware. The license shall allow for themanufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files or derivatives of

the design files.

5. Free redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the project documentation asa component of an aggregate distribution containing designs from several different sources. The

license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. The license shall not require anyroyalty or fee related to the sale of derived works.

6. Attribution

The license may require derived works to provide attribution to the original designer when

distributing design files, manufactured products, and/or derivatives thereof. The license may also

require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original design.

7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the hardware in a specific field ofendeavor. For example, it must not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from

being used in nuclear research.


8/23

9. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the hardware must apply to all to whom the product or documentation isredistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

10. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the hardware must not depend on the hardware being part of a particularlarger product. If the hardware is extracted from that product and used or distributed within the

terms of the hardware license, all parties to whom the hardware is redistributed should have the

same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original distribution.

11. License Must Not Restrict Other Hardware or Software

The license must not place restrictions on other hardware or software that may be distributed or

used with the licensed hardware. For example, the license must not insist that all other hardware

sold at the same time be open source, nor that only open source software be used in conjunctionwith the hardware.

12. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology, specific part or

component, material, or style of interface or use thereof.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

OpenSource Hardware: The next revolution

RecentlyOpen-source Hardware summitwas held in NY when all the Open Source

geeks and gurus met to discuss on the next big thing: Open Source Hardware. For

ages, electronics had been formidably closed and only a handful of corporates and

big players had access. With the growth of open source software, people had

freedom from the propitiatory software. The similar revolution was started with the

AVR microcontrollersfromAtmelas they gave the complete tool chain for free(story

of AVR). Now this idea has come to a much mature phase where a global standard

for hardware would be adopted:
http://m8051.blogspot.com/2010/10/opensource-hardware-next-revolution.htmlhttp://m8051.blogspot.com/2010/10/opensource-hardware-next-revolution.htmlhttp://www.openhardwaresummit.org/http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmel_AVRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmel_AVRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmel_AVRhttp://atmel.com/products/AVR/default.asp?family_id=607&source=redirecthttp://atmel.com/products/AVR/default.asp?family_id=607&source=redirecthttp://atmel.com/products/AVR/default.asp?family_id=607&source=redirecthttp://www.avrtv.com/2007/09/09/avrtv-special-005/http://www.avrtv.com/2007/09/09/avrtv-special-005/http://www.avrtv.com/2007/09/09/avrtv-special-005/http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0H6FO56_NWc/TLWCnEiu7zI/AAAAAAAAAGo/waSsPzrLJFI/s1600/PT_10422.jpghttp://www.avrtv.com/2007/09/09/avrtv-special-005/http://www.avrtv.com/2007/09/09/avrtv-special-005/http://atmel.com/products/AVR/default.asp?family_id=607&source=redirecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmel_AVRhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmel_AVRhttp://www.openhardwaresummit.org/http://m8051.blogspot.com/2010/10/opensource-hardware-next-revolution.html


9/23

The standard definition says:

Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles (Draft)

Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that

anyone can study, modify, distribute, make and sell the design or hardware based

on that design. The hardwares source, the design from which it is made, is

available in the preferred format for making modifications to it. Ideally, open source

hardware uses readily-available components and materials, standard processes,

open infrastructure, unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to

maximize the ability of individuals to make and use hardware. Open source

hardware gives people the freedom to control their technology while sharing

knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open exchange of designs.

This spec has already approached a1.1 of release. Here is the0.4 draftthat it

began with.

I wish all the OHS supporters best of luck and would try my level best to contribut

this movement.

HISTORY

What is a `free hardware design'?

Perhaps the easiest way to define it is by looking at what it is not - by looking at current

commercial design practice.

Commercial design practice

Designs are owned by the company which creates them. Ownership is protected by 3 setsof laws: copyright, trade secret, and patent. It is often not even possible to see a design

without signing a non-disclosure agreement.

Designers cannot legally build on older designs unless their company owns the right touse these designs. Larger companies hold 'patent pools', which they use as bargaining

counters with one another, and which block new entrants from the market. This isparticularly important for developing countries.

Where the design is for a basic building block (eg an FPGA, or a cell library), designsoftware can only be written by those entitled to know the secret information. EDA

software is either written in-house (eg for FPGAs) or by software companies that have

agreements with the man- ufacturers. Even where EDA software is generic, end usersoften have to purchase the right to use specific libraries. The result is that EDA software
http://freedomdefined.org/Definitionhttp://freedomdefined.org/Definitionhttp://freedomdefined.org/Definitionhttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_drafthttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_drafthttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_drafthttp://freedomdefined.org/OSHW_drafthttp://freedomdefined.org/Definition


10/23

is ridiculously expensive; all except the largest companies (or universities) are barred

from using them by cost.

Designs are driven by marketing departments. The two main goals are minimizing time tomarket (estimated to reduce by 30% per year for VLSI designs) and minimizing

manufacturing costs.

Users of the final product have no rights to know how they work.

The combined effect is to create a closed caste of designers producing unintelligible products for

a passive population of consumers ...

So what would free designs look like by comparison?

Free Design Practice

Designs are owned by the people who create them. Ownership is protected by copyrightlaw only. The intention is to make designs as widely available as possible.

There is every incentive to build on older designs, to collaborate with as wide a spread ofpeople as possible, and to make the designs widely known. NGOs in developing

countries are not locked out, but encouraged to reuse designs.

Design software is free software, so that anyone who wishes to can participate. Designs are driven by the wishes of their creators. The end goal can be whatever they

wish.

Users of the end product can not only know how it works, but are encouraged to createimprovements or modify it for their own purposes.

If this list were fully realized, knowledge of hardware design would become more diffusedthrough society, destroying absolute barriers between `creater' and `consumer'. Designs that

people wanted could be produced, rather than designs planned for people to buy.

In practice, some of the features of this list are already realities, and some are becoming so. Itsoften assumed that `free hardware design' is beginning only now, as a side effect of the free

software movement; in fact, many of these ideas are anything but new, and free hardware designwas born with free software.

The Past

The First WaveLike much of the earliest `free software' culture, free hardware designs first emerged from the

wreckage of the 60s counterculture in the USA.

The 60s student movement in the US, based around the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society)had tried to work for a participatory democracy based on community activism. By the early1970s it was becoming evident that networked computers could be the basis for a new type of


11/23

communication that could reinforce and extend communities, an alternative to the centralized

broadcast medium of the press (even the underground press): a medium for active participants.

But the existing computer technology could not easily be used for this purpose: the firstcommunity bulletin boards depended on donated mainframes, a rare and almost unintelligible

resource brought in from outside the community, where the skills to run, maintain, repair, and

develop them were likely to be almost nonexistent.

At the same time, small, medium and eventually large scale integration TTL devices were

becoming easily available. They were ideal for the hobbyist: simple, cheap building blockswhich could be put together easily with the simplest of tools { veroboard, wirewrap, or home-

made PCBs. Frequencies were low, and most analogue effects could be ignored: the most

horrible looking rats nest of tangled wires had some chance of working. A large pool of

individual hobbyist designers began to emerge.

One person with a foot in both camps -- working as an electronic designer, involved in the

Berkely Free Speech movement and now maintaining the first community bulletin board system

-- was Lee Felsenstein. He had recently read Ivan Illich's `Tools for a Convivial Society':

An individual relates himself in action to his society through the use of tools that he activelymasters, or by which he is passively acted upon. To the degree that he masters his tools, he can

invest the world with his meaning; to the degree that he is mastered by his tools, the shape of the

tool determines his own self-image. Convivial tools are those which give each person who usesthem the greatest opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or her vision.

Lee's stroke of genius was to see how to apply these rather abstract ideas to the concrete

problems of the community bulletin board systems: the new computers (initially, just the

terminals) should be designed and built collectively, tapping into the energy of the individual

hobbyists scattered across the country, and creating pools of people in each community who

knew and understood every detail of the systems they were running. The maintenance and repairproblems would disappear. To take on a use as `tools for conviviality' the whole design process

for computers needed to be inverted, to become a convivial process in itself.

Lee's first attempt to realise this goal was to design the `Tom Swift Computer Terminal', forwhich he distributed the schematics as widely as he could

``Hardware reliability was an obvious problem ... My way out of this future problem was todesign an all-purpose `convivial cybernetic device' as a terminal/concentrator/processor in such a

way that amateurs would be encouraged to get their hands on it. In theory, each place where one

of the `Tom Swift terminals' was installed would develop a computer club. Then, when a

terminal broke down, relief would be a local matter, and people would not have to place theirfaith in a remote maintenance system.''

The second was not a design at all, but an organization: theHomebrew Computer Club, started

by a group of 5 activists and engineers. Growing from 30 people in its first meeting to 600 within

a year, the club encouraged the flourishing of cooperative homebrew computer design. Designs,even those which became commercial products such as the first Apple, were shared, discussed,

and fed into one another. The direct and indirect influence of the club spread far outside the US.
http://www.opencollector.org/history/homebrew/http://www.opencollector.org/history/homebrew/http://www.opencollector.org/history/homebrew/http://www.opencollector.org/history/homebrew/


12/23

The initial home computer `industry' was thus a loose collection of small manufacturing

companies and hobbyist groups (often the same people), built on a culture of openness. By the

time the old computer companies realised that there was a potential market for them here, theywere too late to impose their desired closed systems. In spite of the corporate spin that IBM put

on developments

``It is choice that is the underpinning of IBMs commitment to open architecture: providing

information and specifications which encourage others to develop options and programs that run

on our systems. This approach has enabled hundreds of companies and individuals to develophundreds of hardware peripherals which people can choose for their IBM Personal Computers.''

[P.D. Estridge, then president, IBM Entry Systems Division]

the participants of the Homebrew Club were quite clear that they had managed to impose their

way of doing things:

In 1978 IBM put its foot over the line and said `that's mine' with the 5100, a bread-box sizewonder of incompatibility that epitomized the IBM way. They don't like to talk about what

happened to them. In 1981 they returned with the 5150 (the PC), and with it they followed the

rules we had laid out. Anyone can play, these rules read, but you must make your architectureand executive code as public as possible, and you must encourage individuals to write programs

and create add-ons. You can play games, but you must help others to play as

well.\cite{Felsenstein84}

The Second Wave

The first wave had been almost entirely outside the universities. The second wave was entirelybased on the universities, involving an almost completely orthogonal set of people.

The first wave had worked with sharing of designs based round commodity ICs. The internals ofthese ICs were well documented, so this had not been a problem. The designs themselves were

largely drawn by hand, as were the commercial ones of the time. Chip designs were not hugely

complex logically, but creating them did need a deep knowledge of semiconductor physics - aknowledge restricted to the engineers of the relatively small number of companies that produced

them (which at that time usually implied owning their own fabrication equipment).

By the late 1970s this transparency was beginning to disappear: the size and complexity of chips

was becoming enormous. Chip designers creating custom designs needed a knowledge of all

levels of the device, which was becoming increasingly unmanageable. There were two

requirements: to separate the physical design of the chip from logical design and architecture,and to start automating the process of deriving one from the other.

This was not just a technical problem, but a social one: it required the creation of a pool ofengineers who could work in the new way. The impulse for its solution came from two people

who saw this very clearly:Carver Mead and Lynne Conway. The method they invented

correspondingly had two parts: a technical part, involving the reduction of logical designs tosimple diagrammatic representations with a direct, physically viable, semiconductor

implementation; and a social part, which was the invention of what Eric Raymond would years
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/Awards/Electronics/ElectAchiev.htmlhttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/Awards/Electronics/ElectAchiev.htmlhttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/Awards/Electronics/ElectAchiev.htmlhttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/Awards/Electronics/ElectAchiev.html


13/23

later call `the bazaar'. Lynne Conway's paperThe MPC Adventuresis a textbook description of

how to create a bazaar-style community:

Involve large numbers of people. Debug in parallel.

System designers must also be system users. Rapid response to user feedback - release continuous bug fixes and improvements. Let standards evolve from common usage.

Prerequisites for this were the existence of a network (initially the ARPANET) and complete

transparency. Co-operation between large numbers in turn made it economically possible to

manufacture chips at low cost by incorporating many designs on a single wafer.

From an initial base in Xerox Parc, Caltech, and MIT, the method rapidly spread across the US

and then across Europe. Initially, the main software used was simply for layout; but the softwareneeded to be free to encourage the spread of the method. This was before the creation of the FSF

and GPL, butChipmunk, the descendant of Mead \& Conway's original software is still used forteaching and research, and is now under the GPL. As the method spread so the pool of people

able to design ICs grew at a tremendous rate, creating a great flowering of university-developeddesign automation software, most notably in Berkeley and Stanford, but also in European

universities such as Delft.Magicfor layout, SIS and Espresso for logic minimization,Oceanfor

sea-of-gates designs,Olympusfor synthesis: all were naturally created under free licenses. For aperiod the state-of- the-art in design software was free software, and even now nearly all of

todays closed-source design tools contain some elements from these programs.

The Dark Ages

By the early 90s the second wave was grinding to a halt. Rather than creating free softwarewhich could be used commercially, universities began to develop software under contract to theEDA companies, or sought to set up their own companies to commercialize their products. EDA

software became closed source and either unavailable to the general public or tied to particular

companies' products.

The survivors of the first wave had seen technology change from under them: increasedminiaturization, higher clock rates, multilayer PCBs, circuits dependant on custom ICs: all madeit increasingly difficult to produce designs not hopelessly outdated. A period of nostalgia settled

in, with many content to update the designs of the early 80s.

In spite of this, many individuals carried on with their own designs or work on EDA software.And from the mid 90s technological and social changes once again drove a new flowering of free

hardware design, which could also build on the experience of the past.

The Present

Over the last 2 or 3 years free hardware design has grown at an amazing rate.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/~mirror/MPCAdv/MPCAdv.htmlhttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/~mirror/MPCAdv/MPCAdv.htmlhttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/~mirror/MPCAdv/MPCAdv.htmlhttp://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/chipmunk/describe/describe.htmlhttp://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/chipmunk/describe/describe.htmlhttp://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/chipmunk/describe/describe.htmlhttp://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~tim/programs/magic/magic.htmlhttp://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~tim/programs/magic/magic.htmlhttp://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~tim/programs/magic/magic.htmlhttp://cas.et.tudelft.nl/software/ocean/ocean.htmlhttp://cas.et.tudelft.nl/software/ocean/ocean.htmlhttp://cas.et.tudelft.nl/software/ocean/ocean.htmlhttp://akebono.stanford.edu/users/cad/synthesis/olympus.htmlhttp://akebono.stanford.edu/users/cad/synthesis/olympus.htmlhttp://akebono.stanford.edu/users/cad/synthesis/olympus.htmlhttp://akebono.stanford.edu/users/cad/synthesis/olympus.htmlhttp://cas.et.tudelft.nl/software/ocean/ocean.htmlhttp://bach.ece.jhu.edu/~tim/programs/magic/magic.htmlhttp://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/chipmunk/describe/describe.htmlhttp://ai.eecs.umich.edu/~mirror/MPCAdv/MPCAdv.html


14/23

Among the new elements driving free hardware design now are:

1. The increased scale of ICs allowing SOCs (Systems-on-chip), and the resulting need for(and potential market in) libraries of designs at least in part independent of their physical

realization. As FPGAs have grown in size, they two have created a need for design

libraries. Attempts to create commercial libraries of such designs in the 90s were largelyfailures; free designs have little competition. The first established free site for these

designs wasFree-IP; now, the group with the largest number of participants is

OpenCores. OpenCores is pulling in designers from round the world, from students tohighly experienced professionals. The nominal goal of OpenCores is to produce a full

library of SOC components, and to have this manufactured. There is no single standard

for bus interconnections for SOCs; Silicore Corporation have now made their `Wishbone'

bus design public domain and OpenCores have begun to enhance it; it may well emergeas the standard. Flextronics have now announced they may finance production of the first

ASIC basic on OpenCores designs.

2. The widespread use of FPGAs, giving the possibility of implementing complex designseven without access to factories. FPGAs appear to solve nearly all the problems run intoby the board designers of the 80s. A complete circuit can fit into one chip (and the rapid

growth in size of FPGAs means that a 'complete circuit' is not necessarily just aprocessor, but may be a complete system). The FPGA can be loaded with differentdesigns at will - no need to make a new board for each use, making design test and debug

much closer to software development. Virtually all free design groups are making some

use of FPGAs. As a fairly random example, theCPC-NGgroup, who are designing anupdated version of the Amstrad CPC computers of the 80s, are using an FPGA to re-

implement the original Amstrad ASIC, something that would not have been possible

before.

3. The expansion of the market for embedded systems: once again, systems on a scale thathobbyists can build. The computer is no longer only a large, overheated, box, but a

multitude of small, handheld systems. An interesting system does not need to be one

which outruns a multiprocessor board or is clocked at gigaherz, but can be a small, cheap

device with a novel application. There are quite a number of embedded boards such astheLart, which runs Debian Linux on a StrongArm CPU and was originally designed for

radio applications. Maybe more in the spirit of free design isMorphyOne, a Japanese

palmtop which includes an uncomitted CPLD so that users can design in their ownadditional interfaces.OpenH.orghave started rewriting the Sourceforge software to

provide a Sourceforge equivalent aimed at embedded systems hardware designers.

4. The expansion of the internet to cover the world, not just the US and Europe. Freehardware design is not just based on English speakers, but Japanese (eg Morphy),Indonesian (eg. many OpenCores participants), Indian (eg Simputer), South African

(OpenH). The range of experience and also the range of needs for different applications is

wider than ever before. At the same time, the imposition of IP laws on developingcountries has been done in such a way as to push them into developing convivial

technologies as an alternative strategy, as shown by the Bangalore Declaration on

Information Technology for Developing Countries. The first of these to be mass-produced will be the IndianSimputer, which will also be used in Africa.
http://www.free-ip.com/http://www.free-ip.com/http://www.free-ip.com/http://www.opencores.org/http://www.opencores.org/http://cpcng.free.fr/http://cpcng.free.fr/http://cpcng.free.fr/http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/http://www.morphyone.org/http://www.morphyone.org/http://www.morphyone.org/http://www.openh.org/http://www.openh.org/http://www.openh.org/http://www.simputer.org/http://www.simputer.org/http://www.simputer.org/http://www.simputer.org/http://www.openh.org/http://www.morphyone.org/http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/http://cpcng.free.fr/http://www.opencores.org/http://www.free-ip.com/


15/23

The Simputer is not a Personal Computer in the conventional `PC' sense. The `Win-tel'

architecture of the de facto standard PC is quite unsuitable for deployment in the low-cost

mass-market of any developing country... [the Simputer] is targeted as a sharedcomputing device for a local community of users. A local community such as the village

panchayat or the village school, or a kiosk, should be able to give this device out to

individuals for a specific period of time and then pass it on to others in the community.

Designed with this application in mind, the Simputer is heavily based on personalization

through the use of smart cards. Other related designs are the MITPengachu(designed forminimal power consumption, perhaps even wind-up). The Brazilian equivalent,LUAR,

unfortunately seems to have been designed in a closed-source style (though the software

is free).

5. The presence of an established free software movement, not just as a resource but as anexample of what is possible. Given the persistence of free software, it is possible that this

time free hardware designs may not just fade away and be absorbed by commercial

interests, but may also become a permanent gain.

The Future

What happens in the future depends partly on how the outstanding problems in free hardware

design are resolved; among others these are: the lack of free EDA software; an uncertain

relationship to manufacturing, and the lack of legally defensible licenses.

Free designs without free software

The first free hardware design site to make a major impact was Open Design Circuits, started byReinoud Lambert of the University of Delft. The site proposed

Open Design Circuits are the chip design counterparts of Open Source Software with designs(sources) openly shared among developers and users. The open-design circuit approach outlined

here captures the true advantages of open-source software, and aplies them to hardware. It avoids

the large initial investments usually needed for hardware development, and it allows for the rapid

design sharing, testing, and user feedback which are key to open-source software success.The initial idea was thus strongly based on the success of open source software, and it foundered

for exactly this reason. The assumption among most of the participants was that open-source

hardware had to be based on open-source software. There is no open-source software for fpga

design; manufacturer's secrecy over FPGA internals means that there cannot be. Designers haveto either use donated commercial software, or commercial freeware. Even where open-source

software is possible (HDL compilation to netlists, and simulation, in particular) it is generally

considerably behind commercial software. This even applies to PCB design. Given the additionaleffort needed to make use of the open-source EDA software that does exist, and the need to

switch to commercial software for the back-end, almost all those involved in free hardware

design have practically abandoned open-source design tools. This leaves those working on suchtools without the pool of feedback that would otherwise be available, and weakens the free

hardware design movement by decreasing its links with free software. In time, open-source EDA
http://www.media.mit.edu/~rehmi/pengachu/v3/_document.htmhttp://www.media.mit.edu/~rehmi/pengachu/v3/_document.htmhttp://www.media.mit.edu/~rehmi/pengachu/v3/_document.htmhttp://www.luar.dcc.ufmg.br/http://www.luar.dcc.ufmg.br/http://www.luar.dcc.ufmg.br/http://www.luar.dcc.ufmg.br/http://www.media.mit.edu/~rehmi/pengachu/v3/_document.htm


16/23

will grow to the point where it is once again competitive with commercial software, at least for

the front end. The gEDA group has in practice become the focal point for this development: not

only the gEDA developers, but developers of other software such as Icarus Verilog, Spice-NextGeneration, Al's Circuit Simulator, and the Savant VHDL tools make regular use of the gEDA

mailing lists. The real problem is the back-end: the hardware targeted, whether IC cell libraries

or FPGAs, are both fast-changing and often protected by commercial secrecy. One possibility isthat free hardware designers will be able to bootstrap from their own hardware substrata. TheOpenCores group is already working on designing a new (and hopefully patent-free) FPGA as

part of their SOC.

Free designs that can't be made

The initial reaction of many free software supporters to the idea of free hardware designs is `all

very well, but you can't manufacture your own chips'. What initially seemed to be the largestproblem of all is starting to seem less of a problem. The first chips based on gpl-ed designs

already exist: the ESA's SPARC designs have been implemented both for the ESA themselves

and as part of commercial products (Metaflow and IROC). OpenCores have said that they hopeto have their own processor manufactured soon. Similarly, at the board level, the Simputer is

now being manufactured in Mauritius by a company which hopes to target both Indian and

African markets. So manufacture is possible, provided that the design appears to be one withcommercial possibilities. For designs which do not offer an immediate profit, and during testing

and development, the problem is harder. One possibility is to leverage university programs

which have access to chip foundries using Mead \& Conways strategy of multiple chips on a

single wafer in order to reduce costs. Boards are simpler, and many groups can afford to havetheir own manufactured. In the long run, the answer has got to come through co-operation

between multiple groups, perhaps centralized through organizations souch as OpenCores and

OpenH.

Free designs that don't stay free

Commercial designs are protected above all by patents. Free designers cannot afford patents, andin any case have no incentive to use them. Protection must be achieved under some mix of

copyright law, contract law, and the Semiconductor Chip Protection acts. The `traditional' license

which emerged during the 80s says something like: `anyone can use this design, except forcommercial purposes'. This is both contrary to the spirit of free software, and is shooting yourself

in the foot if the only way to manufacture a design is to have it made for commercial purposes.

The ideal license would be one like the gpl, which can be used commercially, but which forces

improvements to be fed back into the free design pool. Yet no-one has yet created a licensewhich is generally accepted as doing this for all aspects of hardware design. The FSF accepts

that designs written in an HDL are software, and so can be covered by the gpl. For schematics,

IC layouts, etc, it seems that the law may not make this possible. The best that can be done may

be something like the BSD license, which cannot prevent firms from making radicalimprovements to a base free design while keeping them secret, effectively privatizing the design.

But experiments with licensing continue; in particular, the Simputer now has the first gpl-like


17/23

license approved by a lawyer - in this case, the effect is achieved by combining copyright with

trademark and other laws.

What next?

Even if none of the problems listed above are solved, free hardware design has been a majorsuccess: hundreds, if not thousands, have been involved, have enjoyed themselves, have learnt.

The knowledge of one area of technology has spread a little further than it would have done

otherwise, giving people back a little part of control over their lives. Some achievements which

now seem unstoppable whatever happens are:

the creation of available free platforms for Linux. free processor designs that outperform commercial ones. designs that implement features commercial designers don't care about (maybe open

FPGAs, or Ogg Vorbis accelerators...).

designs for markets commercial designers don't care about - free designs for thedeveloping world.

In the long run, as solutions emerge through time, we may look back on this point as the

time when control over our lives as passive consumers began to be replaced by creation

of our lives as active participants. In a society that seems determined to force unwanted

pay-per-view tv, ridiculous encryption systems, and privatized knowledge on us in order

to maintain profits, there is a chance to build an alternative technology which is truly

convivial.

"What Is Open Source Hardware? - Presentation Transcript
What is \"Open SourceHardware\" ? November 29, 2008 Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris

@www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give uscredit thanks!
Open Source Hardware can mean a lot of things... Manufacturing

process Unbranded explained Schematics available Free programming interface API open

Based on readily available materials & parts Free Transparent packaging Source code

available Uses standardized ports and interfaces Available for commercial Sold at cost

remaking Available as a kit of parts Firmware editable Replicable by average individual

within several engineering weeks Re-namable Available for resale ... but it's not that

straightforward ... it's not easy to define \"Open Source Hardware\" ... Matt, Justin, Mike,

Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use i

t, just give us credit thanks!
Each meaning can be interpreted in different ways Free

Can tangible things be given away for free, like infinitely downloadable software? Sold at

cost Does anyone make a profit from the selling of this project, gadget, or object? EconomicsEconomics Available for commercial remaking Can someone else remake it, without any

obligations or royalties? Available for resale Can someone else resell it, without any

obligations? Unbranded Is the project branded and protected by a legal entity or institution?

Branding Branding Re-namable Can anyone rename it if they get one and use or alter it? API

open Is the full function library made available to others to access and code? Coding Coding

Free programming interface Can it be programmed with free tools, or do they cost money?

Source code available Is the source code made available for everything that's sold?
http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/


18/23

Manufacturing process explained How replicable is the manufacturing process? Assembl y

Assembly Firmware editable Is the code running on the physical components editable?

Available as a kit of parts Can it be bought as a kit of raw parts, or does it always come

assembled? Schematics available Are the diagrams showing interconnection of discrete

parts made freely available? Build Building Uses standardized ports and interfaces Does it

use proprietary interfaces, ports or cables? Replicable by average individual Howapproachable is it to make? Does it need expensive equipment? Based on readily available

parts Is it based on readily available parts? Parts Parts Transparent packaging Does it ship

with transparent cases or packaging? Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris

@www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give us

credit thanks!
The Open Source Hardware community has many visions \"Easy to

understand \"Easy to build and \"Easy to change the and learn electronics\" assemble

yourself\& quot; behavior\" \"Low cost, and available \"Easy to expand and \"Inter-operable

with \"Robust, durable, and to everyone\" customize\" other open source hard to break\"

projects\" \"Making electronics \"Spreading the values of \"Merging art, design, accessible to

everyone\" DIY and tinkering\" and electronics\" Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris

@www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give uscredit thanks!
Personally, I think these are the big ones \"Easy to understand \"Easy to

build and \"Easy to change the and learn electronics\" assemble yourself\" behavior\" \"Low

cost, and available \"Easy to expand and \"Inter-operable with \"Robust, durable, and to

everyone\" customize\" other open source hard to break\" projects\" \"Making electronics

\"Spreading the val ues of \"Merging art, design, accessible to everyone\" DIY and tinkering\"

and electronics\" Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of

time thinking about this, if you use it, just give us credit thanks!
Personally, I think these

are the big ones I was always motivated by other This is a tough one sometimes, it's nice

peoples' projects, and then I taught to have someone else who helps build the myself what I

needed to learn in hard stuff so I can focus on the piece I want order to replicate it... but

everyone to do (like more coding, not PCB etching!) has different learning styles \"Easy tounderstand \"Easy to build and \"Easy to change the and learn electronics\" assemble

yourself\" behavior\" \"Low cost, and available \"Easy to expand and \"Inter-operable with

\"Robust, durable, and to everyone\" customize\" other open source hard to break\&qu ot;

projects\" I was always inspired by the Cray super-computers b/c they were cool, but

definitely not cheap! \"Making electronics \"Spreading the values of \"Merging art, design,

accessible to everyone\" DIY and tinkering\" and electronics\" I think this will come with time,

when more people build open source things It's hard to do everything at once, but that's the

point of a community Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a

lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give us credit thanks!
What does \"Open

Source Hardware\" mean to you? A pocket reference / cheat-sheet / lookup table \" \" \" \" ze

e\" ak rn\" ics i or mi g\" ibl bre lea ble \" on h av s to n ss to d m tr be cu er i ce rd an se lecthe a nd tink ac le\" ha nd as n ,e nd nic s ab le, r st a an d sig ge nd ble \" ai l rab han xpa ra

IYa c tro av u n de u ild , de oc oe pe dD ele st, t, d ou ob art yt yt r-o ea ke co us yt yt rge as

as te pr a w ob as as e \"E \"E \"In \"S \"M \"Lo \"R \"E \"E \"M Free Sold at cost Economics

Available for commercial remaking Available for resale Unbranded Branding Re-namable

API open Coding Free programming interface Source code available Manufacturing process

explained Assembly Firmware editable Available as a kit of parts Schematics available

Building Uses standardized ports and interfaces Replicable by average individual Based on
http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/


19/23

readily available parts Important Parts Transparent packaging Moderate Matt, Justin, Mike,

Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it,

just give us credit thanks!
In general, a few things seem common or shared \" \" \" r\"

ize e\" ak rn\" \" ics avio tom g\" ibl bre lea ble tron eh s n ss to nd m eb cu er i ce rd da se lec

nd ink ac le\" ha as ,e th a t s ab le, an d n ge nd \" nd nic ai l r st an sig han xpa ra ble IYa c

tro av u rab n de u ild , de oc oe pe dD ele st, t, d ou ob art yt yt r-o ea ke co us yt yt rge asas te pr a w ob as as e \"E \"E \"In \"S \"M \"Lo \"R \"E \"E \"M Free Sold at cost Economics

Available for commercial remaking Available for resale Unbranded Branding Re-namable

API open API open Coding Free programming interface Free programming int. Source code

available Source code available Manufacturing process explained Assembly Firmware

editable Firmware editable Available as a kit of parts Available as a kit Schematics available

Schematics available Building Uses standardized ports and interfaces Replicable by average

individual Based on readily available parts Parts Transparent packaging Transparent

packaging Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time

thinking about t his, if you use it, just give us credit thanks!
What I think... What I think...

Positives Negatives Free Would be nice to get stuff for free But it probably cost something to

make Sold at cost Sold cheaply so everyone can have one No one's going to get rich like BillGates :-( Economics Available for commercial remaking Allows more people be exposed to it

Internet stores need to pay for bandwidth Available for resale More people can easily buy it

Some stores charge more to make profits Unbranded So it doesn't feel like a big company

Hard to control quality with the same name Branding Re-namable Anyone should be able to

name a project None? I guess lawyers like this one... :-( API open Anyone can access it and

hack it Takes a lot of time to document an full API Coding Free programming interface

Allows anyone to compile code Someone spent a lot of time building it Source code available

Easy to share, alter, personalize How do programmers earn a living? :-) Manufac turing

process explained Anyone can build their own This is really hard to do with complex parts

Assembly Firmware editable Can change & optimize low level stuff Many large parts

companies don't let you Available as a kit of parts If someone is ambitious, why not? Surfacemount parts are tiny & easy to lose Schematics available So anyone can figure out what it

does Not everyone has $1000 layout software Building Uses standardized ports and

interfaces Easy to expand and add-on stuff Sometimes sacrifice speed or cost Replicable by

average individual Easy to build, swap out parts Some really cool parts are hard to assemble

Based on readily available parts So if it breaks, I can swap out parts It's all relative - many

people don't collect ICs Parts Transparent packaging I can see how it works without breaking

it Might look ugly, or not \"professional\" There are many different opinions out there, for

sure! Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris @ www.liquidware.c om We spent a lot of time

thinking about this, if you use it, just give us credit thanks!
That means you can make

an index of Open Sourceness Let's call it the \"OS-HW Index\" Total points My opinion...

Weighting Weighting possible Free x0 1 5 Sold at cost x1 1 5 15 Economics 1 5 Available forcommercial remaking x1 Available for resale x1 1 5 Unbranded x2 1 5 20 Branding Re-

namable x2 1 5 API open x2 1 5 Coding Free programming interface x2 1 5 30 Source code

available x2 1 5 Manufacturing process explained x1 1 5 20 Assembly Firmware editable x2

1 5 Available as a kit of parts x1 1 5 Schematics available x2 1 5 Building Uses standardized

ports and interfaces x2 1 5 30 Replicable by average individual x2 1 5 Based on readily

available parts x1 1 5 Parts 15 Transparent packaging x2 1 5 Total possible = 130 A score of

100%, or 130 out of 130 means a project is very \"open\" Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris
http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/


20/23

@www.liquidware.comWe spent a l ot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give us

credit thanks!
Example: here's a snapshot of the original Arduino project Arduino is

75% \"Open\" Importance Weighting Weighting Comments Score Free x0 1 5 Sold cheaply,

but not quite at cost Sold at cost x1 1 5 Available to anyone who wants to 12 / 15 Economics

1 5 Available for commercial remaking x1 resell it, fromtinker.itAvailable for resale x1 1 5

Unbranded x2 1 5 Tightly branded for quality sake; spin-off boards can't be called 8 / 20Branding Re-namable x2 1 5 \"Arduino\" unless certified API open x2 1 5 Source code to IDE

and programs are open, API well documented on Coding Free programming interface x2 1 5

28 / 30 a wiki, but difficult to change Source code available x2 1 5 functionality of underlying

Atmel Manufacturing process explained x1 1 5 Manufactured in Italy, not sold as a 11 / 20

Assembly Firmware editable x2 1 5 kit since some parts of surface mounted Available as a

kit of parts x1 1 5 Schematics available x2 1 5 Schematics public, uses USB but uses it's

own layout for female pin Building Uses standardized ports & interfaces x2 1 5 headers, ~20

people have 24 / 30 Replicable by average individual x2 1 5 replicated it Based on readily

available parts x1 1 5 Most parts are standard and easy Parts to get online, no parts hidden

or 15 / 15 Transparent packaging x2 1 5 obscured 98 / 130 = 75% Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar

& Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, justgive us credit thanks!
Example: here's a snapshot of the MegaSquirt project

MegaSquirt is 81% \"Open\" Importance Weighting Weighting Comments Score Free x0 1 5

Different versions available, some Sold at cost x1 1 5 DIY kits sold nearly at cost, 14 / 15

Economics 1 5 anyone can make their own and Available for commercial remaking x1 resell

it Available for resale x1 1 5 Unbranded x2 1 5 Name tightly h eld by Bowling & Grippo,

MegaSquirt is a registered 8 / 20 Branding Re-namable x2 1 5 trademark API open x2 1 5

Source code open, API documented, but core code is Coding Free programming interface x2

1 5 24 / 30 controlled and no easy IDE Source code available x2 1 5 available DIY versions

contains step by step Manufacturing process explained x1 1 5 assembly instructions, sold as

kit 16 / 20 Assembly Firmware editable x2 1 5 or parts list, but core is still Available as a kit of

parts x1 1 5 controlled Schematics available x2 1 5 DIY versions contain open schematics,uses serial, Building Uses standardized ports & interfaces x2 1 5 documented so it can be

replicated 28 / 30 Replicable by average individual x2 1 5 by engineers Based on readily

available parts x1 1 5 Most parts are standard and easy Parts to get online, no parts hidden

or 15 / 15 Transparent packaging x2 1 5 obscured 105 / 130 = 81% Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar

& Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a l ot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just

give us credit thanks!
Example: here's a snapshot of the Bug Base project Bug Base is

62% \"Open\" Importance Weighting Weighting Comments Score Free x0 1 5 Sold by a

company, so needs to Sold at cost x1 1 5 make profit, anyone can rebuild 10 / 15 Economics

1 5 their own, but resale of the original Available for commercial remaking x1 is tightly held

Available for resale x1 1 5 Unbranded x2 1 5 Bug Labs holds trademarks and copyrights

over products; built 6 / 20 Branding Re-namable x2 1 5 products are Bug Labs named APIopen x2 1 5 Source code open, API Coding Free programming interface x2 1 5 documented,

IDE available for 28 / 30 free, but core code is controlled Source code available x2 1 5

Manufacturing process explained x1 1 5 Sold as a manufactured product, 9 / 20 Assembly

Firmware editable x2 1 5 modules pre-assembled, firmware within modules not directly

editable Available as a kit of parts x1 1 5 Schematics available x2 1 5 Schematics available

for download, uses a special, hard to Building Uses standardized ports & interfaces x2 1 5

replicate port, could be re-built by 18 / 30 Replicable by average individual x2 1 5 talented
http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://tinker.it/http://tinker.it/http://tinker.it/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://tinker.it/http://www.liquidware.com/


21/23

engineers Some parts hard to get and need Based on readily available parts x1 1 5 to buy in

high quantities, Parts 10 / 15 Transparent packaging x2 1 5 packaging transparent on some

versions 81 / 130 = 62% Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent

a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give us credit thanks!
Example: here's

a snapshot of my little TouchShield project TouchShield is 75% \"Open\" Importance

Weighting Weighting Comments Score Free x0 1 5 Sold at cost x1 1 5 Sold at cost in kits,any individual who wants to can remake it, but no 10 / 15 Economics 1 5 companies, anyone

can resell it Available for commercial remaking x1 Available for resale x1 1 5 Unbranded x2 1

5 The name TouchShield is printed on the PCBs, but that's not a trade 12 / 20 Branding Re-

namable x2 1 5 mark, just a natural name for it API open x2 1 5 Source code to IDE and

programs are open, API well documented on Coding Free programming interface x2 1 5 28 /

30 a wiki, but difficult to change Source code available x2 1 5 functionality of underlying

Atmel Built by hand here in Connecticut, Manufacturing process explained x1 1 5 core is

editable, not a kit because 14 / 20 Assembly Firmware editable x2 1 5 some of the resistors

are so small Available as a kit of parts x1 1 5 it would be impossible to ship1 Schematics

available x2 1 5 Schematics public for individuals, uses Arduino and USB ports, kind Building

Uses standardized ports & interfaces x2 1 5 of difficult for an individual to 22 / 30 Replicableby average individual x2 1 5 remake without help Based on readily available parts x1 1 5

Some of the parts were tricky to Parts find, and can only be bought in 12 / 15 Transparent

packaging x2 1 5 quantities of 100. WYSIWYG 98 / 130 = 75% 1. But if you really want to

solder it by yourself, Mike and I will throw all the parts in a bag for you Matt, Justin, Mike,


But not all projects are created equal You can't just compare

projects using an index because not all projects have the same standards High level Code

Software that is editable, compilable, re-distributable Based on cheap, or free APIs, IDEs,

and compilers \"Open Source Code\" Code that sits in RAM space Firmware Code that sits in

components on the PCB, in the circuit Editable, based on relatively widely available

compilers and code-sets \"Open Firmware\" Downloadable to the device without expensive,proprietary equipment hardware stack Schematics Freely available schematic drawings,

documented so that someone Level of else ca n interpret the electronic behavior of the

device \"Open Schematics\" No mature schematic and CAD software exists on the same

level as the C language spec for Linux, so tools are still a wildcard in 2008 Cores Based on

components that are re-programmable (e.g. FPGA's) and whose behavior is documented

with available, recompilable, \"Open Cores\" synthesizable description files (e.g. VHDL or

Verilog) Tools cost $1,000's, with poor open source code substitutes Gates Device

synthesized into transistors and gate arrays based on non- proprietary materials and readily

available chemistry \"Open Gates\" Silicon masks and wafer templates made available in a

synthesizable, replicable way Does not require $100,000's of equipment to synthesize,

prototype and Low level re-test It's not fair to say Linux isn't \"Open Source\" because itdoesn't run on openly synthesizable gates and core processors (yet); it's not fair to say the

Arduino is \"cl osed source\" because it's based on the proprietary Atmel Matt, Justin, Mike,


To what standards should we hold projects in order to call

them \"open\"? Me! Linux OpenSparc OpenCores.org Arduino MegaSquirt TouchShield High

level Open Source Code N/A Open Firmware hardware stack Level of Open Schematics N/A

N/A Open Cores N/A N/A N/A Low level Open Gates N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Matt, Justin,
http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/


22/23

Mike, Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you

use it, just give us credit thanks!
To what standards should we hold projects in order to

call them \"open\"? Me! Linux OpenSparc OpenCores.org Arduino MegaSquirt TouchShield

High level Open Source Code N/A Open Firmware hardware stack Level of Open

Schematics N/A N/A Open Cores N/A N/A N/A Low level Open Gates N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A Good for Good for Good for open software open processors open devices Matt, Justin,Mike, Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you

use it, just give us credit thanks!
Introducing a map of Open Source Hardware

Snapshot of just a few projects High level Code Linux Firmware Pandora Arduino hardware

stack Level of MegaSquirt Schematics OpenCores.org Cores OpenSparc Gates Low level

OS-HW Index score It's hard to make a direct comparison between projects at different

levels in the hardware stack Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris @www.liquidware.comWe

spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give us credit thanks!
This is

where stuff I make is... Me Having grown up with High level Code LinuxLinux, I think

everything should have source code available, for customizing and tweaking Firmware

Pandora I don't like the idea of big Arduino companies ripping off ideas and making mo ney

from hardware stack individuals, so I give away schematics and parts to any Level ofMegaSquirt fellow hobbyist who wants it Schematics OpenCores.org Cores OpenSparc

Gates Low level OS-HW Index score Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris


credit thanks!
So, what is \"Open Source Hardware\"? My definition, circa 2008-2009 1

A movement to create non-proprietary devices that encourage rather than hinder

understanding how something works 2 An attempt to create physical, tangible electronic

devices that encourage customization and expansion 3 A gesture to be \"open\" and

transparent where possible (and relevant) with source code, firmware, schematics, cores,

and gates Harder than software because it relies on largely proprietary tools, and uses parts

4 that can't be freely replicated (like code) And above all, it's an evolving definition that will

be sha ped by the people who are making it, so get involved! Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar &Chris @www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just

give us credit thanks!
Where do we go from here? Open Hardware needs better tools

Eagle Cad is good, but not great Parts libraries are tough to build up from scratch

Simulators, synthesizers and auto-routers are all complicated pieces of software that cost

$1,000's Open Hardware needs more individuals and hackers to join the movement Without

the fear of getting their ideas stolen from them by companies Calling all mechanical

engineers! In order to go mainstream, open hardware needs \"professional\" looking cases

and enclosures Open Hardware needs more training at educational institutions like this

Courses, classes needed to train students into engineers Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris

@www.liquidware.comWe spent a lot of time thinking about this, if you use it, just give u s

credit

thanks!
Thanks! Me: Matt,[email protected]:antipastohw.blogspot.comSome of my latest projects: 8-bit embedded turkey Open

Source Gameboy Open Source Hardware Book Matt, Justin, Mike, Omar & Chris


credit thanks!
inthebitz + FOLLOW
1806 views, 6 favs, 3 embeds

more
Related

BURO Arduino Workshop
1335 views

open source

hardware overview
4207 views

Arduino Basic
1928

views

Connecting RIAs and hardware together
287 views

Three Easy
http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/https://mail.google.com/mail/h/qaby2wmku806/?v=b&cs=wh&[email protected]://mail.google.com/mail/h/qaby2wmku806/?v=b&cs=wh&[email protected]://mail.google.com/mail/h/qaby2wmku806/?v=b&cs=wh&[email protected]://antipastohw.blogspot.com/http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/https://mail.google.com/mail/h/qaby2wmku806/?v=b&cs=wh&[email protected]://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/http://www.liquidware.com/


23/23

Pieces For The TouchShield
1867 views

Three Easy Pieces For The

TouchShield
678 views

Connecting Hardware to Flex (360MAX)
902

views

Open source hardware and the web
4142 v iews

Physical

Computing with the Arduino platform and Ruby
254

views
Recommended

More by user

Three Easy Pieces For The

TouchShield
678 views

Three Easy Pieces For The TouchShield
1867views

What Is Open Source Hardware Part 2
999 views
View all

presentations from this user

About this presentation

USAGE

RIGHTS
All Rights

Reserved

STATS
6
Favorites
0
Comments
0
Downloads1,746
Views on
SlideShare
60
Views on
Embeds
1,806
Total

Views
EMBED VIEWS
50 views onhttp://antipastohw.blogspot.com
8 views

onhttp://www.slideshare.net
2 views

onhttp://static.slideshare.net
ACCESSIBILITYView text

version

ADDITIONAL DETAILS
Uploaded via SlideShare
Uploaded as

Adobe PDF
Flag as inappropriate
File a copyright

complaint
Categories
Technology
Tags
antipastohw arduino source coresinthebitz liquidware hardware open touchshield openhardware osh opensource
Follow

SlideShare
Twitter
Facebook
SlideShare

Blog
0
tweets
0
shares
0
shares
WordPress
Blogger
Mo

re
options
"
http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/http://www.slideshare.net/http://www.slideshare.net/http://static.slideshare.net/http://static.slideshare.net/http://static.slideshare.net/http://www.slideshare.net/http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/

open hard warte presentation

Documents