I know this is a rather ✨ spicy ✨ take, but I feel like if you claim to be an OSHW project, but have your design files in something like Altium/Circuit Maker or F360 et. al. then it's not truly open source.
Like yeah, by all /technicality/ the design files are out there and open, but what's the point if it's closed off if a cloud service of proprietary format? It defeats the spirit, so I don't think it could be truly classified as Open Source.
Yes I know KiCad can import Altium projects but still, that's a cop-out and is missing the point imo
@lethalbit But you can use Fusion360 for free, just not for commercial purposes.
@PaulaMaddox @lethalbit when it comes to software, such restrictions don't fit the definition of Open Source. I think copy-left makes such non-commercial clauses unnecessary anyway.
@jos @lethalbit I guess for me it's about access to the tools, I will never be able to afford Altium, but I can use Fusion360.
@PaulaMaddox @lethalbit but then you can't afford to make money off your work. Even if the license for the designs themselves are free to redistribute, only those who can afford a license for the software can make money off of it. If anything is gatekeeping, that's it.
@jos @lethalbit I agree, but if I do start to make money from my work, I would buy the software. I would have to factor in the cost of that software into my bill of materials for the product.
I do get your point, but at least with Fusion you get access to it, with Altium there is zero access.
@PaulaMaddox @jos @lethalbit Not sure how you have access to the "free for hobby" license. A year ago when I needed the license for a project Autodesk made it extremely difficult to get the free license at all. I was forced to buy a full license if I wanted to use f360 at all. Now I have to rent their tools if I want to access any of _my own_ designs! Their model is in my book evil and bad. I wish FreeCAD was a viable tool for MCAD for me... fortunately KiCad makes Eagle (also f360 now) obsolete
@PaulaMaddox @jos @lethalbit Any published files for open-source hardware that rely on some corporation being "benevolent" is extremely risky for the project itself. Will you be even able to open the files in 5-10years? Sure you can have a "free" license now ... what about the future?
@esden @jos @lethalbit I agree with you, but where are the files hosted? GitHub? Who is to say that won’t change?
As for “free” open source at some point you have to pay, be it for parts, a 3D printer, PCBs or anything else.
Open source is just that, the source is shared nothing more.
But I do think there should be an easier entry for people, monthly licensing isn’t the answer, and neither is paying $12k for a license.
@PaulaMaddox @jos @lethalbit wy main argument is: open-source is not open if you can't open the files. And requiring someone to pay a license to open the files is "discriminating against a group” (having money vs not having money) which is point 5 of the definition. (https://opensource.org/osd/) Making the thing based on the files is in my opinion a separate point and besides the point… to go to an extreme, I “could” carve it with my knife based on the dimensions in the file.
@PaulaMaddox @jos @lethalbit Also, what does the "place where it is hosted" have to do with it? I can always put a git repo on some other platform, gitlab, gittea, my own server… publishing the files on GitHub does not block things and people clone those repos onto their computers without restrictions, and can upload those clones to other places.
@esden @jos @lethalbit it relates directly to having access to the source files.
What if GitHub changes it’s terms of use and starts charging, you’ve just lost access to your files.
In principle I agree with you, but I also feel it’s sadly unrealistic to expect to open/access the files for free forever, nor is it fair to expect people to use sub par tools like freeCAD to be classified as “open source” is also gate keeping and excludes a community.
@PaulaMaddox @jos @lethalbit As for storage: You might be trying to justify using closed source tools here. There are groups that archive content of GitHub. People clone them onto their computers and have copies. I feel it is a bit of a false equivalence of publishing on GitHub vs using a proprietary format to store your design in. I don't call my f360 designs open, and it should be ok, too. At least there is clear expectation of the user. :)
@esden @jos @lethalbit I’m unsure why you seem to be insisting that to be open source you must use open source tools, that comes across as very elitist, which I’m sure isn’t your intent.
For example FreeCAD might be free but it’s been around for 20 years, is still not at version 1 and is, in my experience, impossible to use.
I’m not advocating for licensed tools, I’m saying people should be able to use what they want, nothing more :)
@PaulaMaddox @jos @lethalbit Hmm... because I think open-source hardware should have a certain definition. But I also think that people should not feel bad about publishing files that are not open-source, but be celebrated for sharing. I am not here to shame anyone for not using open-tools for their hobby projects, I am trying to encourage people to label them correctly, at least in the sense of what I think would be correct.
@esden @PaulaMaddox @jos @lethalbit
I fully agree with having an #OSHW definition, as #OSHWA does, where the use of the trademarked logo in product marketing, PCB silkscreening, etc, is allowed once certified by the organization. I also support the idea, however, that there is not a binary pass/fail for OSHW determination, but where certifications are used similarly to other certifications in industry. They could be tiered e.g. water-resistance ratings, to account for #FOSS toolchains, etc.
