As there seems to be enormous confusion about what Open Source Hardware is, OSHWA have produced this handy quick guide.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_f25OKVb0TCb3BKQ053RV9DcU0&usp=sharing
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/uTAgeEkLmfpfMAY2BeuD4XxaA8Jb9-PUg7BZIF-h-0Rp-EdkYgYecjbuQ_hnCetawUVlMw=s190
Lol, that’s a bit small. The first link gets to a readable version, plus other useful guides and checklist.
What do you do to further the opensource community aside from complain about things not being opensource?
@Camerin_hahn
This is not about me, but I understand people like to know that others “walk the talk”, so I’ll take that as a genuine question. I don’t feel the need to brag, so you probably won’t be aware of things I am involved with.
I created http://reprap.org/wiki/RAMPS-FD with the help of Stuart Young, I also have spent many years working on Open Source software projects, all the Things I published are Open Source, all my software and hardware designs are Open Source.
So that does not add up to much, but I think I do all I can as time and my skills permit. And don’t underestimate the need for education, although I realise I am a blunt engineer not a smooth PR guy. Personal failing I guess.
Can I ask what you are doing for the Open Source community?
@bob_cousins working on filament tracking and identification. Trying to help fix the filament vendor inconsistancy issue.
we are not pushing adoption yet as i still need to finish a standardized measurement jig.
The second quesiton. Can you/ do you make enough money to live off of the RAMPS-FD boards?
If you can’t either you need to consider that we need to find a way for hardware to make money, and be opensource.
@Thomas_Sanladerer I will cool down. I just don’t like the “open-source nc is not enough”. there is no reason why things should need to be more than opensource nc. (assuming nc allows for modifications to be sold, not just direct copies)
@bob_cousins To make sure this is in both places. My assumptions were wrong, and i apologize for that.
Reason i was loud and angry, (not a good one), i have seen allot of back seat driving in other places, people being angry about others not striving for an ideal, but they themselves not putting any effort in. Not an excuse, I just want to be clear how i feel,
Again sorry.
I don’t sell RAMPS-FD, although I have sold a few spare PCBs. I see my role as designer, if other people want to manufacture the board (and take the profits), I would welcome that.
But I don’t see Open Source as a way to make money, I see it as a way to freely share my designs with others. So I don’t personally have a need for Open Source Hardware to make money.
I think if someone wants to make a profit they should figure out how to do that themselves. The purpose of Open Source is not to provide an off the shelf business model. The business guy should bring something to the table, otherwise he is just a middleman taking a cut.
However, the one thing I am absolutely sure of is that turning Open Source into something not-Open Source so that people can make money out of is not the way to go. There is simply no such as thing as “Open Source non-commercial”. If you want to create something “like Open Source but not Open Source”, you can if you want, but don’t call it Open Source.
As an analogy, think about opening a vegetarian restaurant. You break even but to make more money, you also decide to sell meat dishes. So now you are making good money - but are no longer a vegetarian restaurant, just a regular restaurant like all the rest.
Non-commercial licenses applied to hardware designs are really the opposite of Open Source, since they try to take away legal rights you already have (First Sale Doctrine). What you make, you own, and can sell freely (provided you respect trademarks), people like Brook Drumm want to take that right away from you.
I appreciate people have their own views, but the Open Source Definition, as defined by the people who invented it, is very clear.
Although this talks about software, the principle is the same:
"Can I call my program “Open Source” even if I don’t use an approved license?
http://opensource.org/faq#avoid-unapproved-licenses
@bob_cousins I think you need to tag @Brook_Drumm if you’re going to call him out like that so he’ll clearly be made aware of your characterizations. I believe he made a comment recently about rethinking his stand on the nc question also, so may choose to comment.
@bob_cousins Bob you make some good points but when you say things like (paraphrasing) Brooke wants to take your rights away I see that as hyperbole and more noise than constructive criticism. While he may want to restrict his designs to be used in a way he sees fit I don’t see that as the same as wanting to take away your rights. The court has limited first sale issues with respect to what is licensed but using another person’s design or reverse engineering isn’t a first sale issue.
Wow. It’s getting hilarious up in here. 
as I posted in the original thread… Adafruit suggested using CC attribution share and share alike, so that’s what I am doing on all files except metal simple. I am indeed dropping the non-commercial part b/c it really only serves as a way to state intentions for what if like to see done with the files. It does not “protect” the physical hardware, so I have decided to just drop non-commercial. I love open source an I feel this better reflects my intentions. I do not want to file patents, so I can’t really protect my files. Like Elon Musk, if I want to protect it, I won’t file patents. It doesn’t prevent reverse engineering but all I really want is a little time to establish a place in the market. Moving fast and getting my products to market does that. Printrbot has a good reputation, prices things extremely competitively, pays people to create open source content (printer-agnostic) for the community with no strings, has good customer support and a 2.5 year track record. All this distinguishes and differentiates our hardware and speaks to the buyer trying to decide which company to buy from. That’s good enough for me.
I am over arguing about ways to get credit, lock down files, protect, copyright, patent, blah blah blah. Instead, how about I go out there and make awesome stuff at great prices, give away files, encourage competition, ignore whiners, and help the community move forward? How about we all do that!
Bob and those that resonate with his views are all entitled to their position and free speech and all that. Sometimes It’s difficult when claims aren’t well supported and opinion sneaks in, but that’s life. It’s always interesting to meet these opposition voices in person- they often turn out to be very different in person. Enduring a little fire on the front end usually burns out quick and good discussion follows.
One of my main currencies is engagement, so seeing someone run out waving their flag vigorously is exciting to me. I welcome hard questions and will listen to opinions. But I’d like to state my own values in my own words. So I’ll do it here:
I love open source.
Brook
@bob_cousins i dont understand why everytime someone mentions printrbot being opensource you flip out, but you don’t yell about E3D.
ALL of their stuff is CC-NC. do you have something personally against Printrbot that you should be disclosing, do you have some reason for only picking on them?
For the record, we’re in the same boat as @Brook_Drumm here, currently NC. However the NC is really just a statement of intention, a gentlemans agreement, and is not enforceable in law.
For that reason we’re quite seriously considering adopting an OSHW type licence instead.
Maybe TAPR.
I’ll be posting the files today under the new license.
Happy printing!
Brook
@Sanjay_Mortimer I am not at all calling you guys out.