[Open-graphics] Definition of Open Hardware

[Jonathan J Smith]

-----Original Message-----
From: open-graphics-bounces at duskglow.com
[mailto:open-graphics-bounces at duskglow.com] On Behalf Of Terry Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:29 PM
To: open-graphics at duskglow.com
Subject: Re: [Open-graphics] Definition of Open Hardware

Jonathan J Smith wrote:
>  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.

This is basically making a machine that conforms to an "open standard" 
or an "open specification" or "open interface".   It's about providing a 
platform for free software (and other software of course) which has a 
"level playing field".  It can also be described economically as 
"commoditization" of the hardware platform.

This is what I personally call "open spec hardware" or "open hardware".

>  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.

This is about bring the free-licensed, bazaar-model design process to 
hardware engineering. It's "hardware hacking" or "community based peer 
production" of hardware. It is a more ideological and more absolute kind 
of freedom over the hardware, because it invites the "end user" to 
involve himself in the process.  It's less economically important, but 
more exciting at a deeper, more personal level.  It has higher "psychic 
value", in advertising terms.

I personally call this "free-licensed hardware design" or "free 
hardware".  It is of course, *also* "open hardware", since the spec is 
easily providable if you have the complete design.

IMHO, *both* are important, and an Open Hardware Foundation should 
support both and provide resources for both.  I think, though, that the 
latter kind of "free and open" hardware should be the focus, because 
it's the most in need of support.  Supporting "open spec" is more of an 
industry lobbying effort, and less of a grass-roots production effort.

Still, going back to the "platform layers" issue, "open specs" make more 
"free-licensed hardware" feasible.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com

_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
Open-graphics at duskglow.com
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)



I am in complete agreement that BOTH types are important.  Again I think the
focus at this point should be more on the Goals of OHF, and perhaps some
preliminary planning on how to implement or start implementing the goals;
rather than trying to find strict definitions of all the various "Types" or
open hardware, or levels of "openness" as yet.


Jonathan Smith