I found the André's proposition not so bad: level 1 : documentation level 2 : code of the documented parts
The things that seem to differ a lot with softwares and , especially with open softwares, are the notion of assembly and control. Making a componment is okay, you have far more control upon it, than making an assembly of componments since that doesn't imply by itself that you have a control upon all the componments. Hence, you're more likely to depend from your suppliers. So, the point isn't to document everything, the real point is that an assembly hardware can't likely be open integrally. From that, either one can substitute the concerned componment, either one can't. Should OHF state about this kind of combination? Maybe at the source level since one can have a fully documented product but the only thing open is the PCB and nothing else. At the source level, since one cannot expect a full control of an assembly, the notion of OH should state about the componment only. As an user, I would be more interested to know through the spreadsheet of a product what is labelled OH rather than the whole product only excepted about it's documentation. Le samedi 25 novembre 2006 à 22:38 +0100, Lourens Veen a écrit : > On Saturday 25 November 2006 15:53, Jonathan J Smith wrote: > > I think part of the problem is the desire to want to keep comparing > > things in hardware land to things in software land. > > > > While there are some corollaries, they really are quite different. I > > think utilizing this exercise can be somewhat misleading when trying > > to define things for hardware. > > I agree. However, there is some overlap, and where they overlap we > really should be using the same terminology. Otherwise things just > become way too confusing. For example, one of the recent posts referred > to open hardware that can only be spread under the same licence as > Libre. This same concept also exists for software however, and there > it's called copyleft. > > That this concept exists for software shouldn't affect the decision > whether it should be part of the open hardware definition. However, > _if_ it is included, it should be called "copyleft". > > Lourens > _______________________________________________ > 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)
