[Open-graphics] Definition of Open Hardware

[Robert Vogel]

"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" <jsmith at smithbox.com>
To: "'Lourens Veen'" <lourens at rainbowdesert.net>; 
<open-graphics at duskglow.com>
Cc: "'Attila Kinali'" <attila at kinali.ch>
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
> Open-graphics at duskglow.com
> http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
> List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
>