When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 14, 2014 06:56PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 14, 2014 07:15PM |
Admin Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 730 |
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 15, 2014 12:52AM |
Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 364 |
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 15, 2014 02:06AM |
Admin Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 1,063 |
Quote
ekaggrat
another question is what information is enough to call a electronics board to be called open source . Some boards ( RADDS ) just share their schematic as a PDF and call themselves open source.. Aren't source files/gerber files necessary to call yourself open source?
Quote
MattMoses
1. In general, I think we want on the wiki as many designs as possible. The more the merrier. (Unless this costs us dearly in terms of operating speed, server space, infrastructure strain, etc.) However, on high profile pages like RepRap Options we should have only a short list of the best and most interesting machines. How to precisely define "best and most interesting" I do not know...
2. I think this definition is excellent.
3. Unfortunately verifying a design takes work, and if one is lazy about it (as I was today) then we end up with designs that don't have all the necessary information public. Verifying designs is exactly the sort of thing an engaged wiki-editing community could do, if we could get enough people interested.
4. STL files are the bare minimum, but if we are using the bare minimum definition of open source (see my opinion to question 2, above) then STL files are acceptable.
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 15, 2014 09:42AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 15, 2014 09:49AM |
Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 869 |
I could make arguments the opposite way. If we were in the software world, I don't think it would be even questioned if I released source code for a library or even complete program under an open source license but did not provide a binary object, installer, etc. It would be up to the end user to determine how to properly compile it and make use of it complying with the terms of the license. Providing the PDF of the schematic I see as the minimum necessary to have it "open". Yeah it's not in a very usable format, just as providing a source code as a jpeg would be of limited usefulness.Quote
thejollygrimreaper
pdf export files of schematics and pcb layouts aren't really a source as you cannot reasonably expect to produce a board from it nor can you produce a variant of it from those pdf files easily.
this kind of behaviour has regrettably become quite common on the wiki and quite a few people have gotten away with it for quite some time, if people want to do this kind of thing that is fine, they should just not be surprised
when content gets removed,
to me the RADDS page on the wiki looks like just another advertising page for a closed source product claiming to the open and there are quite a few of these pages,
there is discussion about wether we are obligated to keep these pages around or if we should in the interests of creating and maintaining high quality content.
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 15, 2014 11:08AM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Quote
Traumflug
I take that this NotOpenSource template needs improvement.
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 15, 2014 12:26PM |
Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,616 |
Quote
cdru
If we were in the software world, I don't think it would be even questioned if I released source code for a library or even complete program under an open source license but did not provide a binary object, installer, etc. It would be up to the end user to determine how to properly compile it and make use of it
Quote
cdru
In the case of the RADDS design, it's already covered under a CC-NC-SA license. Any derivative could not be of a commercial nature so a complete open "source" including layout would be of limited value financially.
Quote
cdru
Also, if you want to go down the road of requiring a particular level of openness, does that mean we'll start excluding non-open source items in favor of the open source alternatives? Now I'm not talking just about designs, but information in general. So talking about or providing information netfabb Studio? Or Kisslicer, SolidWorks or Eagle?
Generation 7 Electronics | Teacup Firmware | RepRap DIY |
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. December 15, 2014 02:22PM |
Admin Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 1,063 |
Quote
cdru
I could make arguments the opposite way. If we were in the software world, I don't think it would be even questioned if I released source code for a library or even complete program under an open source license but did not provide a binary object, installer, etc. It would be up to the end user to determine how to properly compile it and make use of it complying with the terms of the license. Providing the PDF of the schematic I see as the minimum necessary to have it "open". Yeah it's not in a very usable format, just as providing a source code as a jpeg would be of limited usefulness.Quote
thejollygrimreaper
pdf export files of schematics and pcb layouts aren't really a source as you cannot reasonably expect to produce a board from it nor can you produce a variant of it from those pdf files easily.
this kind of behaviour has regrettably become quite common on the wiki and quite a few people have gotten away with it for quite some time, if people want to do this kind of thing that is fine, they should just not be surprised
when content gets removed,
to me the RADDS page on the wiki looks like just another advertising page for a closed source product claiming to the open and there are quite a few of these pages,
there is discussion about wether we are obligated to keep these pages around or if we should in the interests of creating and maintaining high quality content.
In the case of the RADDS design, it's already covered under a CC-NC-SA license. Any derivative could not be of a commercial nature so a complete open "source" including layout would be of limited value financially. Anyone who is going to modify the design is likely going to know Eagle (or similar) and could duplicate the layout and perform their own routing. But I don't think requiring the layout is necessary just to call it "open source".
Also, if you want to go down the road of requiring a particular level of openness, does that mean we'll start excluding non-open source items in favor of the open source alternatives? Now I'm not talking just about designs, but information in general. So talking about or providing information netfabb Studio? Or Kisslicer, SolidWorks or Eagle? All of those are closed source programs that may have free versions but also have commercial offerings that have a financial motivation.
My $.02 is that if the information is there for real informational purposes, it's ok regardless if it's fully open or closed or somewhere in between. If it's just there advertising the cdru MakerPrusaMax90Pro model that is available exclusively on my website and nothing else, then toss it. Whatever information is on there though should be clearly indicated what type of license that it's covered under as well as any notes if applicable if what is available is not compliant with what the license would indicate.
Re: When is a design sufficiently open source to be considered a "development" in the wiki and how to handle edge cases. August 30, 2018 12:58PM |
Registered: 5 years ago Posts: 2 |