Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/04/10:06:07
On 09/04/2015 05:31 AM, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Some Open
> Source hardware enthusiasts are extremely upset about NC clauses. For my
> part I consider them to be crucial for success. Collaboration and
> replicability would be much more important, but this doesn't happen.
> Hardware is far too easy to re-design from scratch.
By this attitude, you leave out eval board users as customers. The NC clause by upverter is
about design symbols and such, not product IP, so even more anti open HW. Most of us understand the nature of patents
and copyright not covering open hardware, but the sea of makers out there are being hyped in
a bait and switch way very often. You should not give up on the open hardware concept Markus -- there are success
stories different than makerbot.
And there is plenty of room for more. I see OHLs like CERN and TAPR as workable with many eval board and
"maker/hobbyist" board or system kinds of uses,
and also compatible with holding some trade secrets back that are part of the same system, just as separate modules.
Once profit has paid back for trade secret designs, and they get stale, and new designs are available, the trade secrets
get the open license also, and other new parts are kept back as trade secrets. That is a picture of further evolution than "break
out boards" for open hardware products. I think it can work.
- Raw text -