Documentation and open source are two orthogonal concepts. I’ve seen plenty of well-documented closed-source projects and just as many open-source projects with no documentation at all.
The OSHWA definition doesn’t really touch on documentation aside from saying that the design should be provided in the “preferred format for making modifications to it.”
How can hardware be open without build documentation? Unlike software which is infinitely replicable and open unless obfuscate, hardware is private by default as the method of construction is effectively the “source code” and can not generally be derived without direct access to the hardware in question and disassembly. Dissassembly without reassembly instructions can only derive vocational information, and reverse engineering is required to translate that to assembly instructions which themselves are likely to differ from the prior engineer’s method.
Hardware is only open source if its assembly documentation is made openly available.
“Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available.” is the first sentence of the link you provided. Viable Hardware Design includes assembly, because as any hardware engineers will tell you a schematic is only valuable if it has been proven possible. Schematics themselves are documentation, design of hardware is documenting hardware otherwise you are crafting not designing.
It’s open source if there is no proprietary tech, and every single components is replaceable from outside sources. I have owned several 3rd gen printers, and currently keep an Ender 5 Plus, heavily modded. I could replicate the machine without much trouble, and not running afoul of any laws. The whole machine is based on prior art.
So I make a pile of sticks, that pile of sticks is open source? No.
You are confusing using open source tools with being an open source project. Using open source tools is great as a user, but it does not make what you do with them open source, whether it makes the activity legal or not. Publishing the design of the tool to be replicable by others is what made that tool open source in the first place for you to use.
It is the difference between “I built this house out of bricks woth my open-source backhoe” and “I built this house out of bricks this way, and here is how you can do it the same way”. Neither one is illegal, but one is an open source project and the other is just permissible under the law.
Open source software only applies to software. Open source hardware, as OC mentioned, does not imply documentation, as long as all components are replicable, and readily available.
“Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design. The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it.” -
https://oshwa.org/resources/open-source-hardware-definition/
If he didnt publish a build guide it’s not open source hardware.
Documentation and open source are two orthogonal concepts. I’ve seen plenty of well-documented closed-source projects and just as many open-source projects with no documentation at all.
The OSHWA definition doesn’t really touch on documentation aside from saying that the design should be provided in the “preferred format for making modifications to it.”
How can hardware be open without build documentation? Unlike software which is infinitely replicable and open unless obfuscate, hardware is private by default as the method of construction is effectively the “source code” and can not generally be derived without direct access to the hardware in question and disassembly. Dissassembly without reassembly instructions can only derive vocational information, and reverse engineering is required to translate that to assembly instructions which themselves are likely to differ from the prior engineer’s method.
Hardware is only open source if its assembly documentation is made openly available.
“Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available.” is the first sentence of the link you provided. Viable Hardware Design includes assembly, because as any hardware engineers will tell you a schematic is only valuable if it has been proven possible. Schematics themselves are documentation, design of hardware is documenting hardware otherwise you are crafting not designing.
End rant, lol.
It’s open source if there is no proprietary tech, and every single components is replaceable from outside sources. I have owned several 3rd gen printers, and currently keep an Ender 5 Plus, heavily modded. I could replicate the machine without much trouble, and not running afoul of any laws. The whole machine is based on prior art.
So I make a pile of sticks, that pile of sticks is open source? No.
You are confusing using open source tools with being an open source project. Using open source tools is great as a user, but it does not make what you do with them open source, whether it makes the activity legal or not. Publishing the design of the tool to be replicable by others is what made that tool open source in the first place for you to use.
It is the difference between “I built this house out of bricks woth my open-source backhoe” and “I built this house out of bricks this way, and here is how you can do it the same way”. Neither one is illegal, but one is an open source project and the other is just permissible under the law.
Public Domain =/= Open Source either.
Open source software only applies to software. Open source hardware, as OC mentioned, does not imply documentation, as long as all components are replicable, and readily available.
“Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design. The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it.” - https://oshwa.org/resources/open-source-hardware-definition/