Hi as you might know. I'm a big supporter of open-source hardware. Have done a few open source hardware projects and I've done a few videos on it, so click to check those out if you haven't seen them already. But unfortunately, there's some big problems with Open source hardware and the use of the famous Gear logo, and these issues don't look like they going to sort themselves out anytime soon.

now. Open source hardware is hugely popular, and then sort of like a de facto standard community-driven definition for what open source hardware isn't. click here if you haven't seen that and a whole bunch of big players supported, including myself. And there's the Gear logo that everyone loves and they plaster it over absolutely everything.

So what's the problem? Well, it's the latter. That is the first problem with Open-source hardware -- everyone is using this logo's slapping the Gear logo on anything regardless of whether or not it meets that community-driven definition. And sometimes this is done completely innocently with the best of intentions. Other times it can be a marketing ploy Just to you know, capitalize on the Open Source hardware name and the community and the brand and everything else where people slapped the logo on and it doesn't really meet the open-source hardware definition and many people might say.

well. so what? The Gear logo itself is Open-source You don't have to abide by the definition. The community is kind of community police. The market will sort of take care of itself, and you know what? There's no issue with doing that.

If you don't want to follow the formal definition, you don't have to. Okay, well, that's actually a fair enough argument, but that's the problem. And with the use of the Gear logo, it's turned into a bit of a shambles. People are slapping it on absolutely everything, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

It's great. It helps promote and support open source hardware, but just by looking at that logo on a product, on a PCB on a webpage, or you know, a Kickstarter campaign or something like that, you don't know what it actually means. Do they meet the formal, community-driven definition And or do they just release a schematic as a PDF and call it open? Or did they release the firmware or part of it? What? Do they have a non-commercial clause in the license? You just don't know by looking at the logo. So the logos kind of become a bit meaningless, ends lost its value, and that's a major problem.

So the trying to fix the Open-source Hardware Association quite some time back proposed a new trademarked Open-source Hardware logo that they would control the rights to so that people can't just slap it on anything. If you want to use that certified logo, then you would have to abide by the definitions and there would be penalties if you don't comply. Maybe they might be. There was talk of a license for you, I'm not sure if that's still happening and Ok, that is one solution to the problem, so that was generally I Think not very well received and actually quite a few people got quite upset about it.

and I can understand why because it's essentially a bureaucratic solution to a problem and a community in that doesn't respond well to bureaucratic process. So whilst I applaud their efforts in trying to fix it this way, ultimately, I personally don't think it's going to be that successful and it does risk actually fragmenting the community more. But it also doesn't solve the problem of the original open-source Hardware Gear logo, which people are still going to continue to use regardless of what this new certified standard does. So essentially it's a solution that just will abandon the problem altogether with using the Gear logo and starts again from fresh and I don't think that's what we need, but I it could work on its own as an independent thing for the true spirit of open-source hardware, which is everything open with the original definition.

And that's fine. I support them continuing trying to do that. Now the next problem is the Open-source Hardware definition itself. It's basically all or nothing.

It's like completely open or nothing. Like you shouldn't use the Gear logo, you shouldn't use some people saying you shouldn't even use the name, you should call it something different. like just open hardware instead of open-source hardware and well, that's a problem. So creating like two camps.

the open-source Hardware camp in the open Hardware camp. That just further splits the community and waters down the Gear logo, which is so popular and has so much traction. And the current community definition for open source hardware is very strict and rightly so because that was the original intention behind it was that you open everything. Everyone is free to copy and also commercially copy the design and build upon it and everything else.

And I still support that philosophy, but it has a major problem. The problem is is that big companies commercial companies who want to get into open-source hardware and release open products are sort of often a bit scared and I've got personal experience with this that this scared to that. They have to open everything and they can't use a non-commercial clause for some aspect of it all or whatever. And quite frankly, I can actually see their point of view because personally, I'd rather have companies join on the open hardware bandwagon and release whatever they feel comfortable releasing anything.

That's just the schematic. Well, so be it, release just the schematic. Hey, that's a small win and a bigger step towards opening up hardware. But unfortunately with the current definition and current sentiment in the community, companies that do this and might potentially want to use the Gear logo or they might want to call it Open Hardware Open-source Hardware risk having their asses handed to them on a plate by the community if they attempt to use the word open Source Hardware or open Hardware and they might use a license people don't like or they might do this all that when they don't meet the strict formal definition.

and I think that's wrong. I think we should encourage them to do that. I'd rather encourage companies to at least open some of their hardware rather than just scare them away. And they just don't open anything.

So is it right that these companies, all these individuals shunned by the community because they don't open their product enough That doesn't seem right? Are They forbidden for using the words open and hardware in the same sentence without going the whole hog. That doesn't seem right either. And I can hear it now. The open-source hardware purists are probably chanting freedom, Freedom, Freedom and whilst I support this sentiment, I don't think it reflects the practical reality of the hardware business that we're in.

People will still do what they want to do. and I think we can have this all-or-nothing approach. So I think we need to essentially claim back this open-source hardware logo the Gear logo, but not in an authoritarian way, but one that actually supports and accepts the practical reality of the hardware business that we're in. And yep, you guessed it.

I've got a plan. We know that everyone loves the Gear logo, so let's keep that of course. But let's change the definition so that you can open as little or as much as you want as long as you identify what. you can.

Kind of do that at the moment by going to our project website, down to the download page checking out what stuff they've got available to download, what they're making available, and what license are using. but that is not at all obvious from just the gear logo. What if we had a gear logo that represented how open a project is. That would be cool.

Let's say you want to release the schematic. Hey, let's add a little 's' to the logo. Want To release the PCB -- add a 'p'. Want to release your firmware -- add a big fat 'F'.

Want to release your mechanical CAD files -- add the big 'm'. Have You got design documentation you want to release. You know those things we used to do back in the magazine project days before this internet rubbish came along where you would publish a theory of Operation Flowcharts and how it works and how to troubleshoot and everything else? Well You can do that -- add a big fat 'd'. Have You got a BOM with that -- give me a 'B' and we've got one space left on our gear.

So finally, if you're using a license that doesn't have a non-commercial restriction in it bloody Rippa Good onya then you get to add a 'c' How easy is that? And the good thing is you can mix and match to add whatever you want to release and it's immediately identifiable based on the gear logo. So if you just want to release the schematic, well, that's fine. Just put the 's' and if you using that license without any non-commercial clause, you put a 'c' as well and Bob's your uncle. Everyone knows where you stand and releasing something is better than releasing nothing but I Know what you're thinking.

Dave What about the original design files? What if people just want to release a PDF of the schematic instead of the schematic or original design file same thing for with a PCB then we'll It gets a little bit trickier, but hey, make them red to show that you're partially releasing it. And of course, I Think this logo might be a little bit tricky to use or as silk screened on your PCB or something like that. so maybe just continue to use the regular gear symbol on its own on your PCB. But then on your product website, on your Kickstarter page or whatever it is and plastered everywhere, you can put a more specific logo that shows exactly what you're releasing.

So with a system like this, I think it takes away all the ambiguity with the Gear logo. And the good thing is they don't have to worry about getting scored by the community for using the logo because it's clear what they're releasing. Of course, this is just my suggestion. I'm just one voice in the community and nobody really sets the standard for open source hardware and nor should they the best idea and the best implementation should simply win out in the marketplace of ideas.

And that's what I hope can happen with this one. So if you like this idea, just start using it on your own project. I'll be using it on my projects and hopefully if enough people do it, it'll catch on. And I'll link to my website down below where you can actually download the image files so you can use and then modify yourself.

So if you like my idea or you don't, let me know in the comments down below if you've got a better idea and different proposal or modification. hey, there's a link to the EEVblog forum where we can discuss it or just leave YouTube comments and all that sort of jazz. Anyway, catch you next time. Hi I Thought about talking about open source hardware or open Hardware because it seems to be a lot of confusion out there.

a lot of misinformation about exactly what open-source hardware is, what the definition of it is, when can you call your stuff open hardware and what license should you use it? Why you would do it? Won't you give you stuff away? Sounds ridiculous. Well, let's try and break it down for you. Here we go.