Re: [DIYbio] Fwd: The institutionalization of OSHW

"I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them
is different. I don't care whether society is bettered by the
product being open or not, I care whether or not the customer is
better serviced by its being so."

And why do you care about that? Only because it means that you
yourself will be "better serviced"? (Could we please say "better
served"?) Or because everybody who uses the product, directly or
indirectly, is better served? And if it's the latter, well, why do you
care about that? Is it axiomatic that it's better that customers
everywhere be better served, even if it makes society worse in some
way? Or is it because you believe that a product being open nets out
to a better society by some measure? If that's the reason, then you're
back at politics -- which is where you end up in any discussion of
property rights (intellectual or otherwise) because property rights
are inevitably defined by a political process.

Regards,
Michael Turner
Project Persephone
1-25-33 Takadanobaba
Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 169-0075
(+81) 90-5203-8682
turner@projectpersephone.org
http://www.projectpersephone.org/

"Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward
together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Chris Church <thisdroneeatspeople@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [tt] [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: The institutionalization of OSHW
> To: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com
> Cc: tt@postbiota.org
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/29/2012 03:43 PM, Chris Church wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not all motivated by the same political or social goals, and some
>>
>>
>> We all use the same definitions, though. And if a device and its software
>> doesn't meet them, it isn't "Open Source".
>
>
> ... and many of us are following the existing definition for open-source
> hardware. As defined here: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
>
> The only talk of re-definition as of late on the OSHW mailing list and here,
> is to further ratchet down the definition - to demand that all files be
> distributed in open-source formats, etc.
>
> The question at-hand, and the one which started this whole conversation is
> "is company X open-source enough." The example at-hand is the amount of
> traffic suggesting to take away from, to shame, and to punish one specific
> company for failing to open-source every part which they sell. And, last I
> checked, they didn't call that product "open-source," they said it had
> "open-source components."
>
>
>> of us produce open-source technologies (hardware and software) for less
>> lofty reasons:
>>
>> - We expect that our customers should be able to service their own
>> equipment
>> - We expect that our customers should be able to make changes to their
>> equipment to better suit their needs, should they have the skills to do so
>
>
>> These are political opinions. They argue that people should be free to use
>> the hardware that they own. Many hardware manufacturers would disagree and
>> claim that they are simply acting in everyone's best economic interests
>
>
> I wouldn't call them political decisions, because my basis for them is
> different. It used to be, when I got a radio, or a TV, I got a schematic to
> aid in the continuing of its operation. I still can get one for my car. I
> don't see the need of the state or popular opinion in that... But, to be
> clear, so we don't sit here picking hairs and bike-shedding all day: I don't
> care whether society is bettered by the product being open or not, I care
> whether or not the customer is better serviced by its being so.
>
>
>
>> And some consumers will make purchasing decisions that are driven by their
>> own political decisions. It would be economically irrational of them to
>> privilege a company's interests above their own.
>
>
> And the customers shall vote with their wallet. Of course, let's not kid
> ourselves. For those of us in capitalist society, the expectation is that a
> company make a profit - and likewise, it would be economically irrational to
> put a non-customer's interest above their own, no?
>
>
>>
>> If people want to call their cool VC-funded proprietary hardware and
>> software "Open Source" then the problem is not the people telling them that
>> they are wrong.
>
>
> I don't think anyone here is claiming that a closed piece of hardware is
> open-source. I haven't seen any such examples from any one on this list,
> for sure, or any one bring any examples to my attention as of late.
> Instead, there has been a lot of talk about whether a company should be
> tarnished should they make a decision to produce a product with a closed
> part and an open part. That anything but 100% is not enough.
>
>
>>
>> I suggest appealing to the economic advantages of democratising access to
>> hardware rather than fighting a losing battle to redefine "Open Source".
>
>
> Again, I will re-state, the only discussion as of late to re-define
> open-source, is to further ratchet it down beyond being simply "open," to
> being "open and shared using x..."
>
> Chris
>
> ---
> Chris Church
> Dynamic Perception, LLC
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
>
>
> --
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "DIYbio" group.
> To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

0 comments:

Post a Comment