Open Know-How - Revision history

Marcin: /* Authors */

2020-07-12T18:47:17Z

Authors

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 12 July 2020
Line 18:		Line 18:
	#Kshitiz Khanal Kathmandu Living Labs		#Kshitiz Khanal Kathmandu Living Labs
	#Andrew Lamb (Chair) Field Ready, Shuttleworth Fellow		#Andrew Lamb (Chair) Field Ready, Shuttleworth Fellow
	#Anna Lowe Manufacturing Change		#Anna Lowe - Manufacturing Change - [https://www.linkedin.com/in/annalowe/?originalSubdomain=uk]
	#Jenny Molloy University of Cambridge		#Jenny Molloy University of Cambridge
	#Neil Noble ex-Practical Action		#Neil Noble ex-Practical Action

Marcin: /* Authors */

2020-07-12T18:42:29Z

Authors

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 12 July 2020
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Study the organizations involved:		Study the organizations involved:

	Jérémy Bonvoisin University of Bath		#Jérémy Bonvoisin University of Bath
	Richard Bowman University of Bath		#Richard Bowman University of Bath
	Andre Maia Chagas The University of Sussex, Mozilla Fellow 18/19		#Andre Maia Chagas The University of Sussex, Mozilla Fellow 18/19
	Kaspar Emanuel Kitspace.org		#Kaspar Emanuel Kitspace.org
	Martin Häuer OSE Germany		#Martin Häuer OSE Germany
	Brynmor John Field Ready		#Brynmor John Field Ready
	Andrés Barreiro Wikifactory		#Andrés Barreiro Wikifactory
	Kshitiz Khanal Kathmandu Living Labs		#Kshitiz Khanal Kathmandu Living Labs
	Andrew Lamb (Chair) Field Ready, Shuttleworth Fellow		#Andrew Lamb (Chair) Field Ready, Shuttleworth Fellow
	Anna Lowe Manufacturing Change		#Anna Lowe Manufacturing Change
	Jenny Molloy University of Cambridge		#Jenny Molloy University of Cambridge
	Neil Noble ex-Practical Action		#Neil Noble ex-Practical Action
	Nathan Parker MakerNet.Work		#Nathan Parker MakerNet.Work
	Jon Schull e-Nable		#Jon Schull e-Nable
	Balthas Seibold GIZ		#Balthas Seibold GIZ
	Julian Stirling University of Bath		#Julian Stirling University of Bath
	Emilio Velis Appropedia		#Emilio Velis Appropedia
	Michael Weinberg Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA)		#Michael Weinberg Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA)
	Tobey Wenzel Docubricks		#Tobey Wenzel Docubricks
	Diderik van Wingerden Think-innovation.com		#Diderik van Wingerden Think-innovation.com

	=Pros=		=Pros=

Marcin: /* Pros */

2020-06-03T16:25:23Z

Pros

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 3 June 2020
Line 32:		Line 32:
	=Pros=		=Pros=

	A universal format for information about products makes them discoverable. It allows one to assess the license of projects readily. It is a general purpose tool that facilitates open source collaboration.		#A universal format for information about products makes them discoverable. It allows one to assess the license of projects readily. It is a general purpose tool that facilitates open source collaboration.
			#The question seems to be mal-formed: what problem are we solving for? Discoverability of information on other projects? Discoverability of closed source projects? I don't know how to think about it. There is high usefulness in discovering closed sourceness- so we avoid closed projects. But it seems that we would be better served by serving open projects - why give attention to closed source? How to think about it? It's like looking at a glass half full vs half empty - it's a choice of perspective, but with important practical consequences.

	=Cons=		=Cons=

Marcin: /* Cons */

2020-06-03T16:23:31Z

Cons

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 3 June 2020
Line 38:		Line 38:
	#The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading. IT is open knowledge on closed projects - how to reconcile the name? This is yet another obfuscation of the work 'open'. I would use another name instead of open, which is too close to 'open source'. Need to address license ambiguity (open vs not) up front, this is not a good start.		#The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading. IT is open knowledge on closed projects - how to reconcile the name? This is yet another obfuscation of the work 'open'. I would use another name instead of open, which is too close to 'open source'. Need to address license ambiguity (open vs not) up front, this is not a good start.
	#Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served because '''[[Tool Chain Degeneracy]]''' is not addressed a priori. This makes distributed quality control not possible.		#Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served because '''[[Tool Chain Degeneracy]]''' is not addressed a priori. This makes distributed quality control not possible.
			#Scope is only simple devices and electronics, not technology in general, therefore this does not address [[Technological Recursion]].

Marcin: /* Cons */

2020-06-03T16:21:41Z

Cons

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 3 June 2020
Line 36:		Line 36:
	=Cons=		=Cons=

	#The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading. IT is open knowledge on closed projects - how to reconcile?		#The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading. IT is open knowledge on closed projects - how to reconcile the name? This is yet another obfuscation of the work 'open'. I would use another name instead of open, which is too close to 'open source'. Need to address license ambiguity (open vs not) up front, this is not a good start.
	#Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served because '''[[Tool Chain Degeneracy]]''' is not addressed a priori. This makes distributed quality control not possible.		#Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served because '''[[Tool Chain Degeneracy]]''' is not addressed a priori. This makes distributed quality control not possible.

Marcin: /* Cons */

2020-06-03T16:19:10Z

Cons

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 3 June 2020
Line 36:		Line 36:
	=Cons=		=Cons=

	#The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading.		#The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading. IT is open knowledge on closed projects - how to reconcile?
	#Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served because '''[[Tool Chain Degeneracy]]''' is not addressed. ~~, in that OSE focuses on collaboration with supercooperators only~~. ~~Doing less is a compromise when aiming for creating the open source economy.~~		#Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served because '''[[Tool Chain Degeneracy]]''' is not addressed a priori. This makes distributed quality control not possible.
	~~ccccccccccccc~~

Marcin: /* Cons */

2020-06-03T16:04:26Z

Cons

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 3 June 2020
Line 36:		Line 36:
	=Cons=		=Cons=

	The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading. Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served, in that OSE focuses on collaboration with supercooperators only. Doing less is a compromise when aiming for creating the open source economy.		#The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading.
			#Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served because '''[[Tool Chain Degeneracy]]''' is not addressed. , in that OSE focuses on collaboration with supercooperators only. Doing less is a compromise when aiming for creating the open source economy.
			ccccccccccccc

Marcin: /* Authors */

2020-06-03T16:02:00Z

Authors

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 3 June 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:

	=Authors=		=Authors=
			Study the organizations involved:

	Jérémy Bonvoisin University of Bath		Jérémy Bonvoisin University of Bath

Marcin: /* What is it? */

2020-06-03T16:01:46Z

What is it?

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 =What is it?=
 The Open Know-How Specification is a specification and format for how to communicate information about products. The specification is open source, [[OSHWA]] compliant. The specification is used to communicate how to communicate about hardware knowledge.
 =Pros=

Marcin: Created page with "=Website= http://okh.ludwigcorp.eu/ =What is it?= The Open Know-How Specification is a specification and format for how to communicate information about products. The specif..."

2020-06-03T15:48:36Z

Created page with "=Website= http://okh.ludwigcorp.eu/ =What is it?= The Open Know-How Specification is a specification and format for how to communicate information about products. The specif..."

New page

=Website=

http://okh.ludwigcorp.eu/

=What is it?=
The Open Know-How Specification is a specification and format for how to communicate information about products. The specification is open source, [[OSHWA]] compliant. The specification is used to communicate how to communicate about hardware knowledge.

=Pros=

A universal format for information about products makes them discoverable. It allows one to assess the license of projects readily. It is a general purpose tool that facilitates open source collaboration.

=Cons=

The specification does not apply only to open source projects, so the 'open' in the 'Open Know-How' is misleading. Ethical-economy open source organizations such as OSE are not well-served, in that OSE focuses on collaboration with supercooperators only. Doing less is a compromise when aiming for creating the open source economy.