Open Hardware Definition v1.0

From what i understood the idea seems useless knowing that the existence of hacking transforms a closed source hardware to an open source. So any type of hypervisor or supervisor will be unlocked giving the developer full access to the hardware and software to be modified.

The concept of Open Hardware eludes me. Couldn't anyone smash down a certain device and learn the schematic and just rebuild it with a few modifications?

I got the point but I still dont find it as something new. For a primary reason that corporations wont ever release their schematics for free if they patented it for like 100 years.

X, its not that simple with complex multi layered PCBs. besides, most intelligent solutions are based on micro controllers that have "invisible" code inside.

Samer, Thanks for notifying us about this. ill definitely Help :)

Open Hardware is another way of showing that it's not always about price. Of course you get open source software for 0 cost, because it simply costs nothing to reproduce it and redistribute it. It is the very nature of software after all.

But if you look a little more in detail, the analogy lies somewhere else. In software what is shared, modified and redistributed is mainly the source, the code. Giving you the permission to modify binaries will not help out much. Even if I give you the binaries for free. What you need is access (and permission) to the source: the code.

The same goes for hardware. Open sourcing hardware means sharing the design of a hardware and not claiming ownership or moral property over it. Of course the actual piece of hardware has an owner, belongs to somebody and cannot be modified by anyone who feels like it. However the source behind it is of open knowledge for everyone to look at and reproduce, and ultimately sharing their improvements. This is geared towards collaborative manufacturing of new machines. The main condition to do it: access (and permission) to the source: the design.

Now some of you mentioned that reverse-engineering makes open source hardware futile...
So many things to say:

1- Why hardware?
Software too can be reversed engineered. Does it make open source software futile?

2- Why go illegal?
When I buy a piece of equipment, I want to play and tinker with it, definitely find out how it's made. Why should it be something illegal? By producing open source hardware, you foster curiosity, creativity and innovation. Hackers should not be considered pirates. If open source hardware was widely available, they wouldn't even bother to touch proprietary hardware. (Just like most software hackers use open source software almost exclusively).

3- Why limiting yourself?
No matter how good you are, you will never be able to unveil the full design of a hardware by reverse engineering it. There's a limit to how much you can know about a black box.
Open Source not only provide detailed documentations about the product, but the product itself is usually designed with public collaboration in mind (kind of how you would code a C library or Java package).

4- Why wait?
It took years to crack the PS3. And even now, the jailbreak system is limited. Can you imagine what the PS3 would've been today if instead of fighting them, Sony had encouraged the hacker to play with the console and modify it. By 2011 the advances made would have been tenfolds.

You get the picture. Maybe you can think of something else?

@rahmu: So what about competition? What about product differentiation? Would everything I've learned in my marketing and management courses become nothing but crap now?

It's not nothing but crap; however a big part of it becomes invalidated by open source for example:

- You need laws to protect your intellectual property for people to buy from you. I witnessed this first hand. I used to work for a company that sold books except the content of the books was freely available on their website under a Creative Commons website. Turnover for 2010: 1 million euros. Number of employees: 5.

- Money is the only motivation in progress. If people don't get paid, they'll stop improving the products. 17% of the people working on the Linux kernel are unpaid volunteers. That's around 700 people working on a mutli-billion product for free.

- The only way to make money is through licensing. I talked about this in a previous post.

Look I did not invent open source. It exists whether we like it or not. And it's making money. A lot of it. You either learn to understand it or pass an opportunity. I chose the first option.

Finally how come every time the subject of open source is mentioned, people complain about the money. As developers, geeks and other hackers, open source is a super good news for us. It means we can share code/designs freely to get to do what we want, without worrying about the licensing of X or Y library.

@rahmu: I did not bring up money in my post. I was talking about competition and product differentiation. Open Source hardware would kill competition, literally. If one company innovated some product, then released the design, other companies will jump into it and create the same product as well simply because nothing prevents them from doing so. Moreover, this will make the other companies kind of lazy: Why would they spend a lot of $$ on R&D when they could simply pick up some design that was innovated by the other company? Ok I know they might build upon it, and then start re-selling it. But how is that fair to the innovating company?

Open Source software could be justified by the fact that most full-fledged solutions cannot be picked up off the shelf. There has to be some sort of customization to fit the company's needs, and here's where the money kicks in. But do you think that the average person is going to ask for a customized cell phone or a customized 3D-TV?

Kassem wroteOk I know they might build upon it, and then start re-selling it. But how is that fair to the innovating company?

Under an open source license similar to the GPL, when the company builds upon and resells the product, they also have to release their improvements under the same license, so that way the original company still benefits from the other company's modifications! In fact, everyone does!

Hi all,

My name is ayah, and i led the development of the Open Hardware Definition, and organized (with Alicia Gibb) the Open Hardware Summit that is referred to in the Definition description. I'm based in NY, but, i'm lebanese and a geek, so I'm excited to join this community!

Let me clear up some questions about Open Hardware posted above.

@kareem_nasser: "From what i understood the idea seems useless knowing that the existence of hacking transforms a closed source hardware to an open source"

and

@xterm: "The concept of Open Hardware eludes me. Couldn't anyone smash down a certain device and learn the schematic and just rebuild it with a few modifications?"

Not exactly. That's like saying looking into a binary or an executable is enough to have access to a piece of software. Hacking is great, and in some cases, an excellent way to peek into the hardware design of a product, and perhaps be able to reverse engineer it. But as soon as the hardware becomes even slightly complex, this becomes impossible. You need schematics, pcb layout, component lists, and sometimes firmware to go on the hardware. The power (and point frankly) of Open Source Hardware is that you can learn from, reproduce, improve and share a piece of hardware.

@kareem_nasser: "I got the point but I still dont find it as something new. For a primary reason that corporations wont ever release their schematics for free if they patented it for like 100 years."

Normally patents are valid for only 20 years, but that's not the point. The point of the movement is to encourage companies, startups, individuals and schools to share their hardware work while still being financially sustainable. It is not a reality yet, and still a form of "activit" movement. But we see A LOT of adoption in the filed, over hundreds of companies doing it and benefiting a lot, see this article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-06/adafruit-targets-tinkerers-with-open-source-electronics-kits.html

@Kassem: "@rahmu: So what about competition? What about product differentiation? Would everything I've learned in my marketing and management courses become nothing but crap now?"

I wouldnt call it "crap", but we are arguing that this type of thinking is of the old world order, and the new world is not like this. Traditionally, people have been sharing and "open sourcing" their inventions for decades, until the patent system came in and stifled the very thing it was born to try to protect. We (and a huge growing industry) are saying that to make a better world, we need better products, better collaboration, better businesses, better thinking. We can all benefit from it, its not mutually exclusive, its raising the bar.

@rahmu: I agree with your first post entirely, but not the second. There are many other business models than licensing, and open hardware projects and companies are figuring out how to pay volunteers/contributors to be able to contribute. Money is VERY important for sustainability and to be able to make good/great/ground breaking work, but it is ultimately not the main reason to get into it. Businesses need to understand that these are often cheape/faster/more efficient models for R&D and then marketing/dissemination of products.

@Kassem: "Open Source hardware would kill competition, literally"

That is a concern, and a difficulty, and that is one of the reasons why we embarked on establishing a definition. Ultimately, Open Hardware is a branding and services game. You get hired for product development, customization, commissions BECAUSE you have established yourself as an expert (or the first) using your open source hardware.

Any licenses out there cannot apply to hardware (only the documentation of hardware). CC licenses are all copyright based, and they don't hold in these cases. So the idea is, if you produce hardware, your only form of protection to date is: 1- patent (incredibly expensive, and ultimately stifles innovation) or 2- being backed by a community and publish/produce often.

This is definitely not a final solution, which is why we are in the early stages of this revolution. And step one is community accepted/agreed upon nomenclature/definition. The problem is not solved (far from it), but many (including CC who showed their commitment by sponsoring the definition, and naming an open hardware fellow -myself) believe it's a very important/interesting one.

wow, this was gonna be a short post and ended up being mega long. Sorry about that, but im psyched people are discussing this in lebanon/the middle east. Keep them coming :)

cheers
ayah

Thank you for the details Ayah.

Also, we're glad you found us, stick around and enjoy your stay.

Wow, great post ayah. Glad to have you joining our small community.

ayah wrote@rahmu: I agree with your first post entirely, but not the second. There are many other business models than licensing, and open hardware projects and companies are figuring out how to pay volunteers/contributors to be able to contribute.

I think you misunderstood my second post. I was giving examples of theories that Open Source proved to be invalid. Theories you referred to as "old world order".

Kassem wroteOpen Source software could be justified by the fact that most full-fledged solutions cannot be picked up off the shelf. There has to be some sort of customization to fit the company's needs, and here's where the money kicks in. But do you think that the average person is going to ask for a customized cell phone or a customized 3D-TV?

And do you think the average person needs a customized Photoshop app?
You fail to see how software and hardware are similar in this case. Don't you think that if a company operating a GSM network (just like MTC or Alfa) was to buy a new piece of equipment, they would need to pay support from it? They don't care whether it's open source or proprietary. They really need it to work that's all.

Thanks a lot Ayah and rahmu for your great explanations.
Some closed source software have a limited open source version, could this be applied to hardware or everything related to it must be kept secret(patented)?

Is it ayah bdeir?