Lutetium-
Hack Chat Transcript, Part 3
10/23/2019 at 20:05 • 0 comments![]()
Awesome![]()
@Frank Buss that is what we are aiming for with the certification. We have had times where we certified something and someone from the community came back and said that the documentation was not enough to reproduce it. Once we confirmed that we gave the original creator a choice: update the documentation or become decertified. We all worked together to improve the documentation so that it was better for users![]()
@Frank Buss even then, you still need hardware capable of running the GPL software. I feel the reasonable demands are there. If there are further reasonable demands, please share the thought.![]()
@Leon Anavi One of the Bulgarian kings of open source hardware!![]()
@Michael Weinberg sounds good, but maybe it should be a requirement on the definition page![]()
:-D![]()
@Michael Weinberg hehe :) Olimex are the local open source hardware kings here :)![]()
@Michael Weinberg definitely! And I'm thinking more about products that are mostly a circuit board, which don't have a ton of secret sauce once all files and BOM are released, and which take zero effort to reproduce. Single digit effort is fine, I'm just thinking of something > 0.![]()
@Frank Buss "would be nice if the license would require any information to reproduce it yourself, as GPL does for software" -> Please, no hand-holding for the masses. There are limits for what can be done for design documentation vs not allowing shroud around certain design aspects of supposedly 'open' stuff.![]()
@Frank Buss the question is how deep do you need to go? Do you need recipes for making your own transistors?![]()
digikey part number would be sufficient :-)![]()
@Frank Buss how about radioshack part number?![]()
ok, manufacturer part number might be the best solution, then you can find it with http://findchips.com etc.![]()
digikey doesn't have most parts I use![]()
@Frank Buss the certification requires you to comply with the definition, and the definition requires documentation. But, again, it is hard to create detailed rules that can be easily applied to kite surfers, violins, and microcontroller boards![]()
@Michael Weinberg @Drew Fustini btw it will be nice to have a ranking by countries at https://certification.oshwa.org/list.html. I guess Bulgaria at the moment is on the top of the list for Europe :)![]()
That is where the feedback from the community really helps. They are the best positioned to know hen things are "good eough"![]()
@Leon Anavi I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that Bulgaria has the highest per-capita certification of any country. We are working on a project that could result in an interactive map and leader board![]()
@Frank Buss "digikey part number would be sufficient" -> No. Here is the schematic with general component IDs, here is the PCB layout, here is the source code, here is the gist of the mechanical interface, now be a cool dudette or dude and build it.![]()
@Michael Weinberg actually, all projects certified from Bulgaria are from my hometown - Plovdiv :)![]()
I am trying to convince people from other places in Bulgaria to certify their products.![]()
OK folks, here we are the end of another information-packed hour. You never know which way a Hack Chat is going to go, and this one took off on its own trajectory from the start. Really useful info, though - so many dimensions to IP and licensing.I'm going to call official time, but the OSHWA people - think I saw @Drew Fustini on, hi Drew! - can keep fielding questions as long as they want to. I'll just say a big thanks to @Michael Weinberg and everyone else for coming in on short notice to celebrate Open Hardware Month!
![]()
@Leon Anavi in that case Ploviv has the highest per-capital certification of any city on earth![]()
@Michael Weinberg I have a project that I publish all the hardware. For software I am a little worried. I want it to be open so people can make improvements but I would like to verify it because if it sons work It can destroy the hardware and whatever project is connected to it. Whats the best way to approach this (https://hackaday.io/project/164913-open-power)
![]()
Thanks @Michael Weinberg![]()
Thank you![]()
@Brian I'm just a programmer, can't figure it out myself![]()
Remember I'll be posting a transcript at https://hackaday.io/event/168042-open-hardware-month-hack-chat within the next hour or so. And don't forget to come along next week for a SatNOGS update:![]()
@John Loefler clear documentation is probably a better tool than a license to control that kind of thing. Laws can't fix everything!![]()
-
Hack Chat Transcript, Part 2
10/23/2019 at 20:04 • 0 comments(https://certification.oshwa.org/process.html)
![]()
@Michael Weinberg And isn't the new US law that it is the first "inverntor" to patent not "person". if you are the first to put it in the public domain isn't that prove you are the inventor![]()
@Anthony Kouttron that's right. When you think about open source hardware, thing about four parts: hardware, software, documentation, and TM![]()
What if *you* released something to public domain. Can *you* then still go and patent that same thing?![]()
but putting it in the public domain practically bans you from patenting it![]()
when you openly license the hardware, software, and documentation you are not also licensing the trademark![]()
@Daren Schwenke I think you have one year![]()
@John Loefler I think I remember seeing that too![]()
@David Troetschel I believe the rule is 1 year after public disclosure![]()
think of the trademark as being where you go to start answering the question "who is responsible for this board that just caught fire?"![]()
the first place it should point you to is the person/company that actually manufactured the thing, not the person/company that came up with the design![]()
which makes me wonder, do disclaimers work for hardware designs as well?![]()
if I release a design of something, can they come knocking on my door when it explodes in their hands?![]()
to step back, the reason that all of this matters is because when people say that they want to 'open source their hardware' we want to make sure that they have not inadvertently left barriers to future users because they did not license things properly![]()
you can state warnings and such if it makes you feel better but it can't really stop someone from trying![]()
disclaimers never hurt (that's why you see them everywhere) but there are some things you can't disclaim away.![]()
but if all that can´t be enforced, does it even matter for hardware?![]()
that's what worries me![]()
they can be enforced, it just depends on the context![]()
there are questions about how responsible a designer is if they just release digital files (as opposed to create a board and ship it)![]()
Thanks for all the information guys! this really helps. Going back to what @David Troetschel mentioned, can I have a piece of hardware registered open source hardware and cern hardware at the same time? Is that even possible?![]()
with 3d priting and such, that becomes a moot question![]()
also if you did something totally negligently like design the board to explode whenever someone turns it on a disclaimer probably won't save you![]()
@Anthony Kouttron totally!![]()
They are complimentary.![]()
"Licensed under CERN OHL v.1.2 or later http://ohwr.org/cernohlCreative Commons LicenseGeometer by David Troetschel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at dtroetschel@hotmail.com.
Open Source Hardware Association Certification https://certification.oshwa.org/us000157.html"
![]()
this is for Geometer![]()
https://hackaday.io/project/161645-geometer
Geometer
Geometer is a new design tool and form language mediating between the physical and digital world. It is made to be understandable, communicable and dynamic. -No black box, encouraging active participation and goal oriented design. -Components open a channel for dialogue around relationships and patterns.
![]()
makes me think we never see exploding board stories on HaD :(![]()
The OSHWA certification says that the hardware complies with the open source hardware definition. One of the elements of the definition is to license the hardware in a way that others can build upon it. The CERN licenses are great ways to comply with that requirement![]()
sweet. Thanks for all the information guys!![]()
CERN is one of the recommended hardware licenses in the certification application https://application.oshwa.org/apply![]()
and the CERN team is doing a great job with those licenses![]()
i think im going to go with open hardware license + cern license and just set up my trademark and get an llc registered to make it all work![]()
exploding chips on boards we have a plenty. Well I do at least.![]()
interesting! i didn't know CERN had their own licence![]()
Do you have any thoughts on the new CERN 2.0 that is in draft?![]()
I think CERN 2.0 is a big leap forward and I am excited for them to finalize it![]()
that website is broken, had a lot of "check_box_outline" strings all over it instead of checkboxes...![]()
Let me also take this opportunity to say that the call for speakers for the Open Hardware Summit is open.... (https://2020.oshwa.org/apply/)![]()
@de∫hipu which site?![]()
12. License Must Be Technology-NeutralNo provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology, specific part or component, material, or style of interface or use thereof. -> would think this to be intractable and not practical. Have done many a design with components that were single-sourced; and/or where the unique physical design elements were required to functions; and/or where the code was limited to a specific distro. We are freakin hackers and engineers. If you want cool stuff out there in the wild, where the designer has some level of indemnity, you will probably need to re-think this clause.
![]()
Is the LHC, licenced under the CERN licence though i wonder ;)![]()
thanks again guys. In case anyone was wondering, this is what i've been working on and I hope to make it as open as I can. Still working on the board though so it's not done yet:https://hackaday.io/project/167303-portable-professional-fume-extractor
![]()
@Michael Weinberg that "apply" link — probably some javascript I have blocked that failed to do graceful degradation![]()
the https://application.oshwa.org/apply site is working fine for me. I do have JavaScript enabled.![]()
what about appropriate licensing on the design files for objects? Like on one hand you have openscad code which generates the model, on the other hand you have the model itself like an stl, and in the end you get a physical object.![]()
@Brian that provision does not mean that the components cannot be single sourced. Only that the license can't be contingent on using components from a specific source![]()
(not important, sorry)![]()
@Daren Schwenke the stl would be a derieved work from the code, no?![]()
@anfractuosity unfortunately not. Right now they are using the license for some cool high speed networking equipment https://white-rabbit.web.cern.ch/![]()
@Michael Weinberg should you sign you name to hardware projects design files if you want to keep it open?![]()
@de∫hipu I don't know. I've just guessed and picked until now..![]()
Not sure if this has been brought up, but is there a "best practice" on the exchange of design materials. We have a number of boards developed in Allegro because developers know how to use it to get the right signal integrity, but I'd like to make sure people can bring it into other tools. Is there a best practice?![]()
@Daren Schwenke We recommend CC licenses for the files themselves. Keep in mind that those licnenses only control copying the documentation. They usually will not control making the thing that is documented![]()
@Michael Weinberg intriguing thanks![]()
@John Loefler I don't know that it has a huge impact. It will allow people to give you credit if they use the design, which can be nice sometimes![]()
@Anthony Kouttron if you go through the certification process you can be sure that it is open and matches the definition![]()
@Michael Weinberg It doesn't prevent anyone from using it though, right?![]()
the process is free....![]()
Brian that provision does not mean that the components cannot be single sourced. Only that the license can't be contingent on using components from a specific source. -> non sequitur. Some designs will, in fact, (regardless of being poor engineering practice) require use of a component that is available from single manufacturer. Again, we are freakin engineers. Allow us to release stuff where others may have to 'hack around' the original design. That is life in the big engineering lab, kids.![]()
@John Loefler not in and of itself![]()
most microcontrollers are only produced by one manufacturer, for example, rarely you have drop-in replacements![]()
I'm curious if there's a category or terminology for something that's a half-step between open and closed hardware. Where you release the knowledge, design process, and enough documentation for someone to be able to re-create your device, but not enough that they can very easily copy it. For example: releasing the schematic for a PCB but not native design files or gerbers. Releasing 2D drawings of mechanical parts, but not native CAD or step files. The idea being to still encourage learning while having a minimal amt of protection in place for your own sales (at least requiring some amount of effort for someone else to manufacture your product).![]()
@Alpenglow Industries hmmm....![]()
@Brian there are two issues at play here. You are allowed to use single sourced elements in your design (as long as those sources are generally available without having to sign an NDA). What you cannot do is say that "my license is contingent on using materials from X source". That is trying to avoid a situation where someone says "here is my open hardware but if you do not purchase all of the parts from me I will sue you for copyright infringement."![]()
@Alpenglow Industries I'd say such a thing most definitely exists, but is not "open hardware"![]()
I consider schematics and 2d drawings to be basic documentation...![]()
the definition is meant to get a reasonable minimum.![]()
@Alpenglow Industries @Jason Kridner +1![]()
pretty much anything should come with those![]()
(it used to be that way, when you bought a TV, you got the schematic with it)![]()
most companies have some secret sauce outside of their patents, thats the only way to really keep something safe.![]()
sure, there is a bit of a sliding scale as there's always some practical limit to openness, but, again, some minimal level that offers some chance of success.![]()
@Michael Weinberg Do you have a process / set of licenses that you recommend for people wanting to a) make open hardware, b) make some money on the hardware, while trying to reduce the likelihood of other people making your product cheaper and reducing your income? I was wondering about some kind of royalty baked into the license?![]()
@de∫hipu that is one of the things I like about the certification process. We have some review guidelines, but we obviously do not have experts in every area. If we certify hardware and later on someone comes back to say "hey, this is missing documentation X which is really important in this area" we will work with the creator to make sure everything is updated. It turns it into a collaborative process![]()
do you have to list the exact part numbers and manufacturers, or just the circuit diagram and PCB layout? In the definition at https://www.oshwa.org/definition/ I don't see this requirement![]()
@David Troetschel @Jason Kridner I know that wouldn't be fully open. It's hard to contemplate one big jump into fully open hardware.![]()
The rule we landed on for the certification is that you need to make the "creator contribution" open. That means that everything that is in your control to open needs to be open. . But if you buy patented products from a supplier you do not have the ability to 'open' those parts. So as long as you document them and they are generally available you are ok.![]()
@de∫hipu there is 'right to repair' in the EU and US where household appliances will have to be delivered with repair documentation, see https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49884827![]()
@Alpenglow Industries Just use 01005 Resistors and Caps no one could copy that![]()
"there are two issues at play here. You are allowed to use single sourced elements in your design (as long as those sources are generally available without having to sign an NDA). What you cannot do is say that "my license is contingent on using materials from X source". That is trying to avoid a situation where someone says "here is my open hardware but if you do not purchase all of the parts from me I will sue you for copyright infringement." " -> ok this sounds reasonable. But I am a simple-minded engineer, and my interpretation of this clause is still problematic. But keep on truckin - this could be a 'really good thing'. Live long and phosphor; abuse The Farce.![]()
:)![]()
@Matthias Tarasiewicz but that's not for the end users, sadly![]()
@John Loefler Ha! Including me!![]()
@Frank Buss good question. The rule of thumb is that you need to give enough information so that someone can figure out how to source them. You do not need to disclose your specific supplier and/or contracts if you do not want to![]()
@Brian thanks!![]()
If you think of most projects @Alpenglow Industries they have some unintentional secret sauce just because of their complexity. https://certification.oshwa.org/us000157.html![]()
@Alpenglow Industries things can be good even if they are not fully open!![]()
e.g. I saw an open source hardware circuit with a 32.768 kHz crystal, but it didn't mention which type, and it wouldn't work if it were 7 pF load capacitance instead of 12 pF![]()
yeah, it's impossible to specify everything![]()
OSHWA thinks that openness is a great tool for many situations, but it is not always the right choice for everyone. That being said, if you take a step in that direction you may find that it is better than you thought.....![]()
would be nice if the license would require any information to reproduce it yourself, as GPL does for software![]()
but its nice to give feedback and answer questions if you go the open route, it's advertising of a sort![]()
I have a new project that is fully open source. I'll submit it in the coming days for OSHWA certification.![]()
Congrats @Leon AnaviHack Chat Transcript, Part 1 10/23/2019 at 20:03 • 0 comments
![]()
Hi everyone, that's for joining us. Today on the Hack Chat we have @Michael Weinberg from OSHWA, and we're going to be celebrating Open Hardware Month, which is October BTW.@Michael Weinberg - can you tell us a little about yourself and your role at OSHWA?
![]()
Sure! Hi everyone and thanks for having me. I am currently the president of the board of OSHWA. One of the major things I am responsible for is OSHWA's open source hardware certification program (https://certification.oshwa.org/)![]()
I came to OSHWA because of an interest in open source 3D printers, especially some of the legal issues they raise![]()
A big part of the certification program was helping people understand some of the licensing issues around open source hardware, which can be complicated![]()
I'll also say that I know that there will be some other members of the OSHWA board joining for at least part of the chat, so don't be surprised when they chime in![]()
I am also part of the steering committee for this year's Open Hardware Summit, which will be in NYC on March 13 (https://2020.oshwa.org/)![]()
I love the Summit because it is a chance for the open source hardware community to get together in person and see what everyone is up to![]()
So, you mentioned legal issues around open source 3D-printers. What kind of issues?![]()
They basically broke down into two categories - issues with the printers and issues with what came out of the printers![]()
for the printers themselves (and this is true of most open source hardware), many people come to the legal issues from an open source software background![]()
that means that they assume that the printers are protected by copyright and that the major thing to worry about is what license to pick![]()
but the big difference between software and hardware is that software is automatically protected by copyright when it is created. That means it is 'born closed' and you need to take active measures to let people copy and build off it (usually with a license).![]()
hardware is 'born open' so by default people can copy and build off it. The license is probably only relevant to a tiny portion of the hardware![]()
that portion can be important, but it isn't the whole thing like software![]()
[citation needed]![]()
Sounds like that open v. closed thing might be a relic of the patent system v the copyright system.![]()
(here's a longer post about it) https://michaelweinberg.org/post/150123246460/the-cost-of-a-successful-creative-commons-and-open![]()
cool![]()
@Dan Maloney yes. @de∫hipu let me expand on it a bit![]()
any non-trivial physical work is covered by copyright by default, as far as I know![]()
Nope.![]()
One way to think of it is that intellectual property law divides the world into two categories: functional and 'creative'![]()
if something is in the creative category it is eligible for copyright protection. that includes software![]()
if it is in the functional category it is eligible for patent protection![]()
the twist is that copyright automatically protects anything that is categorically eligible for copyright protection![]()
what makes it "functional"?![]()
for patents you need to go out and get the patent![]()
See, I always knew my code was a work of art...![]()
basically if it is the kind of thing that a (non-software) engineer would design it is going to be functional![]()
so something like a 3D printer is functional![]()
that doesn't sound like a proper legal definition![]()
hmm interesting, so if it's not patented it, you can copy it, wrt hardware? (although i guess not the firmware parts)![]()
Intellectual property law is very region-specific. Assuming you are referring primarily to US here?![]()
but the vase that you 3D print with it is protected by copyright![]()
the reality is that a patent is just the right to sue, otherwise you must rely upon evidence to prove original art even when it applies to a design. This unfortunately does not ensure protection either. The world of design is basically a free for all. I'm an industrial designer and have one OSHWA project. https://certification.oshwa.org/us000157.html![]()
So the Vase is protected because it´s not functional?![]()
what if it was a bottle opener?![]()
@de∫hipu 17 USC 101 defines the scope of copyright proitection![]()
ah, so you are talking only about USA![]()
and excludes "useful articles" from that scope![]()
so the vase is not useful?![]()
and defines useful article as "A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a “useful article”."![]()
while IP law can differ across jurisdictions, the basic categorizations are fairly static![]()
the question about the vase raises an interesting question![]()
thanks, sorry for sounding contrary, but this is the first time I ever hear about such a thing![]()
I know that you can't copyright "obvious" things, or things that have to look that way to work![]()
here is an older whitepaper that covers some of the distinctions. It is in the context of 3D printing, but it holds true in most cases https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up-3d-printing/![]()
you are thinking about patent![]()
one of the requirements for patentability is that the invention is "non-obvious"![]()
A vase itself as a construct is protected under a patent, the specific appearance that distinguishes a tiffany vase from that produced by Pottery barn is art (even though it is design, which is why our patent system is broken) and so is therefore a copyright or design patent![]()
If someone makes a print of a painting, they have to pay royalties right? Isn't this the same thing as the printed vase?![]()
hm I can kinda understand it because even though the vase has a function by holding water togheter, it is only made to hold a flower and is therefore not a function but decoration![]()
you can patent that the thing has to look that way to work -- that's the whole point of a patent![]()
@Marc Schömann but your question is the right one. Many objects are not purely functional or purely decorative![]()
Hi. I have a question regarding open hardware. I would like to make a project of mine open source hardware, so anyone can recreate it, but I don't want someone else to begin mass production without my consent (i dont want inferior parts being used).Is there any provisions in the OSHWA open hardware license to allow this? I am also looking into a cern hardware license.. Thanks!![]()
one of the famous US cases involved a cocktail shaker that was shaped like a penguin![]()
There is a difference between design patents and utility patents.![]()
@Jake exactly![]()
@Anthony Kouttron one of the things that OSHWA does is maintain the community-created definition of open source hardware (https://www.oshwa.org/definition/)![]()
/me has already discovered a huge hole in his understanding, that is great![]()
that definition does not allow you to limit someone else in that way (which does not mean it is an unreasonable thing to want - just that it couldn't be certified open source hardware)![]()
in practice you might also have problems restricting people from mass producing the hardware because you may not have a legal right to stop them - even if you do not actively openly license it![]()
@Jake good point. I am talking about utility patents here![]()
So... what prevents someone from taking a cocktail shaker and shaping it like a slightly different penguin? Or worse, taking a legitimate patented object(like a wireless earbud) and shaping it like a penguin to create new intellectual property?![]()
you still need to apply to get a design patent, but they are a somewhat different animal![]()
nothing![]()
other than it costs money and often like patents are turned down![]()
ah.![]()
@Saint Meh (lawyerly answer) it depends.... In the case of the earbud, the patent would be on the music-playing functionality![]()
@Saint Meh someone has to design the penguin![]()
design patents are crazy, very hard to enforce![]()
so assuming that was patented you would be infringing no matter what form factor you put it in![]()
but the idea of a penguin-shaped object can't be protected![]()
oh really?![]()
You just have to give it a name![]()
but if you only had a copyright in the penguin shape, someone else could create their own interpretation of penguin and you probably could not stop them![]()
sure, you can trademark it![]()
but that's a separate thing![]()
@de∫hipu is flagging a concept in copyright sometimes called "idea/expression dichotomy". No one can protect the idea of a penguin sculpture, but you can protect the specific expression of that idea that you create![]()
so effectively if you open source something you have to live with the fact anyone can make money out of it![]()
yeah, but you can have secret sauce or some other implimentation![]()
no matter which licence you chose![]()
trademarks are also slightly different.. They are designed to make it clear the source of the product. So you can get a trademark if you can show that people associate the name with you.![]()
@Marc Schömann yes. Including you!![]()
IE https://certification.oshwa.org/us000157.html![]()
So... I want to make a cool folding door for my hackerspace... but Torggler invented it, not me. https://homehacks.co/a-diy-folding-metal-door-that-looks-from-the-future/![]()
could I get in trouble?![]()
so I have this open, but the chair I might design with it is my design![]()
@Michael Weinberg isn't this ecactly the use case for a trademark? preventing inferior products posing as the originals?![]()
where would I even go to know if I could get in trouble for recreating it?![]()
If the hardware design is put out in the public domain (say Hackaday.io) and time Stamped doesn't that constitute prior art. The would effectively prevent anyone elf from patenting it?![]()
correct![]()
@Saint Meh I can't give you specific legal advice because I am not your lawyer. I will say that the first question you should ask is "is the door actually protected by any sort of IP right?"![]()
@Saint Meh that is the fun part of the intellectual property law all over the globe -- you can't know until someone sues you and wins the case![]()
@Michael Weinberg Thanks for the reply. I am developing hardware that is designed to be affordable solder filtration, but I was a bit concerned that if individuals like it (a lot) some cheap labor factories may reproduce my device with inferior components and even knockoff filters. I would still like my device to be open. Do you know of any license that would cover openness, but say that it cant be copied en mass?![]()
it's up to the judge to decide![]()
@John Loefler that's a good question! I assume "yes" unless it has been patented before it went up on hackaday![]()
@de∫hipu yes. That is why not freely licensing your trademark is so important to open source hardware! Anyone is free to make the hardware, but people need to know when you actually manufactured the specific piece of hardware in their hand![]()
I'm sure i heard something about being able to implement things from patents for personal use, is that correct?![]()
@John Loefler it would be a good start to being able to prove that the patented invention was not novel![]()
@anfractuosity not in the US, although there are personal exceptions in other places![]()
nintendo had this dirty hack with the gameboy, where the device wouldn't work unless the cardridge contained a logo they have trademarked -- that allowed them to sue people who made 3rd-party cardridges![]()
cal you tell me more about trademarks and open source hardware? So if I trademark my logo, is that logo not included under open hardware license?![]()
you could use cern in conjunction![]()
@Michael Weinberg ah, cheers![]()
I will also note that the certification page has examples of how IP works for hardware, software, documentation, and trademarks, with actual certified hardware to show how it works (https://certification.oshw
OK folks, here we are the end of another information-packed hour. You never know which way a Hack Chat is going to go, and this one took off on its own trajectory from the start. Really useful info, though - so many dimensions to IP and licensing.
