[PLUG] 1st Open PC avail end of Feb!

[Mike Connors]

m0gely wrote:
> Mike Connors wrote:
>
>   
>> This is the same mis-perception that I had about open hardware.
>> Which is that if open source sw runs on it than it must be open.
>> This is a much different definition that Keith L. and Steve D. have put
>> forth.
>>     
>
> There is no misperception. I never said it was open. The point I was 
> making was that it works in spite of that. That apparently, it was /open 
> enough/.
>   
As Keith stated:

"open hardware" is interpreted as "runs Linux" or "ships with Linux" as opposed to "here are the schematics and mechanical drawings".

As Steve stated:

"The term usually means that information about the hardware is open to

all. This would include the hardware design (i.e.schematics, bill of

materials and PCB layout data), as well as a FOSS approach to the

software that drives the hardware."

It's either open per the consensus of what the definition of open is or it's not.

You're certainly welcome to your /open enough/ opinion. Per Keith's scale of 
"openness", your definition is in the 3 -5 range. Where I think the general consensus
of 'open" hw is in the 8 - 10 range else it's a mis-understanding/perception of what "open" hw
is generally understood to be defined as...