OSH repository project (FLOSH)
From Gosh! 2009: Open Source Hardware Summit
Tuomos notes from Kiln wrapup:
Ravi’s intro:
• “when starting new religion, as few commandments as possible to get the congregation” - minimum number of “commandments“
• term commercial could be defined, not absolutely necessary, includes (open list) vs consists of ... (closed list)
• every term in licensing text adds for limitiations
Discussed:
• free open source or open source (with some restrictions)
• grouping different licenses to just two, open but 1. commercial- allowed 2. non-commercial
• use Jons Shared Design statement as basis edit it on wiki, strip down, eg references to google
• term source is technically incorrect but has "branding" value from OSS
• drop term source from name / subtitle
• should we use term responsible sharing -> sustainable
• how we address the question of sharing
• openspark as potential model (membership)
• use the terms from CC
• not to limit just to electronics, although the main area will be electronic hardware
• share what: physical desgin (action of creation) / physical devices (the end product)
• include open specification
Statement evolution
• the group / alliance / community is dedicated for sustainable sharing of open [hardware] / design / physical devices
• the repository of ....
Working name / subtitle
Open Hardware and Design Association
The association is dedicated for sustainable sharing of open hardware and design
Categories of licenses:
1. Free (as no restriction)
2. Open / Shared? (as any restriction) (excl. freedom 0)
3. Accessible (excl. any of the freedoms)
Direct adaptation of the freedoms from Free Software Definitions:
Freedom 0. The freedom to use the device for any purpose.
Freedom 1. The freedom to study how the device works and change it to make it to do what you wish. Access to the complete design is a precondition to this.
Freedom 2. The freedom to redistribute the device and/or design.
Freedom 3. The freedom to improve the device and/or design, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the complete design is precondition to this.
Alex's notes from the Saturday afternoon wrap-up.
discussion on the deck , Ravi, Tuomo, Jon, Brian, Gisle, Chris, Alexandre R. 1. Discusion on the organisational level. <the proposal is to adopt chapter model, with one initial chapter whose
C. it is a certification model, suggests the ISO label as a way to specify international rules
J. seems like ISO certfication to be the oposite of what we ar about
...process for acceptance for membership ravi + a 'go light' approach probably there is a meanginfulness to the evaluation, documentary proof that they are agreeing to the mandate of the organization right to use the certification mark start the creation of a chapter, with the policing role to ensure that they abide by the mandate of the organization
B. is regionalism an issue really?
R. we don´t have an elegant license solution so it is an organisation that through mnembership promulgates the values
C. is it reagionally based or interenational, having chapters would maybe be a tad bureaucratic
J. what is the advantage really?
R. it´s a solution to let peope who would be otherwise reluctant to join
C. J. but people do join intl orgs or use free software from locally incorporate orgs all the time
C. we can grow our own vetting and ranking process like slashdot does
J. we think OHAD works and here are the ways to do it
R. who´s going to own the copyright and (and C. : be able to change)
J. the cetification mark is enough and the license is enough mk changes then we C.R. that's practical and if we need to make changes then the org can do it
R. the org owns a group of copyights and as an entity provides them to the whole world
J. Jurgen knows larry lessing so if we coud get more comments legal analysis and such we could post early and get comments
C. Ravi´s students can go ahead and then it can be vetted
D. getting a name and getting a site
J. shared design .org
C. open hardware consortium
G. likes open hardware
discussion follows on alliance and association
linux audio consortium
ohda Open Hardware and Design Alliance
discusion about Open and it´s meaning (D. A. C. J.)
14:07 >TOD we got the name down
discussion about ´Bruno´ follows (all)
D. are we going to build a site?
R. the freedoms need to bedefined a bit more
J. kind of surprising that we didn´t get more rewrites given the arguments we´ve had
C. the 4 freedoms were less and one was added, we can probably reduce by adding the second part to the fourth
J. maybe we need a fitfh freedom
R. if we talk abotu the outsourcing, we had a good question. You have the fredoms but we have to find ho to promulgate them. with membership status comes the obligtion to keep the freedoms alive.
J. was taking about the 3rd freedom..
A. should we nail them down,
C. what next steps?
J. B. we keep the gosh mailing list
C. who applies for the domain, register a .int and a .org OHADA.int
C. wikis or google docs? not the gosh wiki, bu t instead start a mediawiki
G. can host the site (mediawiki)
T. I can go with the logo, and design aspects
J would like to be on it.
C. what is the best certification mark
J, nt the amercian recvery act (shovel from the grave?) it scked
T. the recylcing mark
text only version as well
a. what we don´t like is the balck box, it could play on that
j. share alike
j.
d. ohanda.org loos good )like the hand connotation)
C. has an ánd´or´
d. daniel leaves and registers
j. discusion about the mission statement...
C. we need to keep the point of pushing to the ´free´
