m0gely wrote: > Mike Connors wrote: > > >> This is the same mis-perception that I had about open hardware. >> Which is that if open source sw runs on it than it must be open. >> This is a much different definition that Keith L. and Steve D. have put >> forth. >> > > There is no misperception. I never said it was open. The point I was > making was that it works in spite of that. That apparently, it was /open > enough/. > As Keith stated:
"open hardware" is interpreted as "runs Linux" or "ships with Linux" as opposed to "here are the schematics and mechanical drawings". As Steve stated: "The term usually means that information about the hardware is open to all. This would include the hardware design (i.e.schematics, bill of materials and PCB layout data), as well as a FOSS approach to the software that drives the hardware." It's either open per the consensus of what the definition of open is or it's not. You're certainly welcome to your /open enough/ opinion. Per Keith's scale of "openness", your definition is in the 3 -5 range. Where I think the general consensus of 'open" hw is in the 8 - 10 range else it's a mis-understanding/perception of what "open" hw is generally understood to be defined as... _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
