Back on this subject again huh?. This is really a can of worms. A definition like "Requires HDL", means that NOTHING designed out of common chips could be called open hardware, only things designed from the logic level up could be. There are MANY variations of themes here. I could go about designing a complete workstation design utilizing common available components, release all of the schematics and PCB designs, write firmware/BIOS for it and release all of this to the public. By definition this still would NOT be Open Hardware compliant (according to some). Is this USEFUL? Or not?. Another variation might require that the person developing the firmware has access to information only available under NDA, with no encumbrances on said firmware being distributed for any and all to view/use. Is this Open Hardware compliant because NOT _ALL_ of the documentation is readily distributable? Again is this useful or not? In my view things that encourage more and more "openness" and head the general state of affairs MORE that direction are probably more useful in the short-term/long-term than a very RIGID methodology that Does little to encourage or foster people, organizations, and companies to operate with as interaction with the open community as they can. Jonathan
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
