"OPEN" means open.
If it is possible to hide unwanted functionality inside the box, then it is
not open. The only way to prevent that is to make it completely transparent
and therefore auditable.
I do not believe such hardware exists today. Much of it phones home without
authorization from the consumer, some of it is hackable through back doors
as are some voting machines.
Encryption is designed to be defective so that 'officials' can monitor
communications. So is DRM (see http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ )
If it is closed, consider not buying it. An uncompromised Open Hardware
Community (few organizations are uncompromised) would find anything other
than complete transparency unacceptable.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan J Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Lourens Veen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[email protected]>
Cc: "'Attila Kinali'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Open-graphics] Definition of Open Hardware
Well this gets rather complex rather quickly if you want to look at the
legal aspects of things.
There is IP (Intellectual Property) inherent in many stages of a Hardware
design. All of which is clearly covered by copyright laws / patents etc.
There is also the issue of "intent" of use, or distribution.
For instance one could:
1) Develop an HDL design of a CPU along with associated clue logic
that defines an entire computer.
From this one could "OPEN" the specification from a
programming point of view to allow anyone to freely develop software for
said platform while keeping the details of the Hardware design under
wraps/licensing. One could also setup a distribution mechanism for "OPEN"
type development; while still having a distribution that sells the end
platform to commercial users should they wish to purchase it rather than
as
an unsupported product.
OR,
One could open the HDL design up for "OPEN" non-commercial use to
allow anyone who had the resources available to them to build the design
in
FPGA or the like and construct the end computer themselves. While this is
more "open" in some ways, I would argue that it leads to a situation where
FEWER people have potential access to the end product. There are not a
large number of people who have the resources to develop something from an
HDL description into a final working product.
Now which is more "Desirable" or "Better"?
Not sure I'm capable of answering that one, although I'm quite certain I
could argue for either..
--------------
Perhaps the aim shouldn't be so much to "DEFINE" what Open Hardware is,
but
"DEFINE" the "GOALS" or "INTENT" of the Open Hardware Foundation.
Clearing set forth what OHF is ABOUT fostering, and what their INTENT is.
Not so much setting up rules about what methods or levels of "Openness"
are
OKAY, but more about what OHF is about and where they are headed..
My 0.02$ for now.
Jonathan Smith
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
