With hardware such as PC boards, even when they are open designs and the gerbers (etc.) are available people still tend to buy boards. At least I do. Making boards takes time I often don't have. And getting a couple boards manufactured is often not cost effective if you can buy the boards from the original designer.
The only thing I think you really need to worry about is someone who can afford to produce many boards based on your design and selling them for less than you can. Is the Propeller board market that large? I haven't seen anyone selling copies of the Gadget Gangster boards which have files that are readily available. I appreciate that Nick makes files available, though, and I have used them to make boards of my own compatible with his (the file for my board is available for free on this forum).
Whichever way OBC (and others) decide to go with the contest, I'm OK with it. If you don't want to give away your IP, don't enter the contest if that's part of the entry conditions.
Jazzed: I'm looking forward to your TetraProp board, open or not.
Both software and hardware can be difficult, but the cost of software is mostly time except for maybe the act of buying a copy something that enables participation. Asking someone to post Gerber artwork in exchange for the chance to win a contest is not a fair deal.
Software or HW the cost is the same. You need to buy HW to do HW designs and there is your time. You need to buy HW to do software designs, and than there is your time. In either case much of the HW is reusable by you (the breadboarded components go into the next design, the Prototype on PCB is there for you to use). Thus I would argue that if Open Source (which deals with FREE as in liberty, not so much FREE as in BEER) software is acceptable then so is Open Source HW.
Now back to the topic of this design competition. I can not help but notice (my mistake I guess), that I am not the only one doing a Video adapter. Beings that one is built around a second Propeller and the other around an ATMega, I think that the results of both efforts will be quite interesting to compare.
I haven't seen anyone selling copies of the Gadget Gangster boards which have files that are readily available. I appreciate that Nick makes files available, though, and I have used them to make boards of my own compatible with his (the file for my board is available for free on this forum).
You don't have to look too hard
Back to the topic at hand... I think its good to hold IP close for a period of time, and periodically review whether it is worth exploiting. There is always a time vs exploitability equation. Once a good design/concept passes its 'exploit by date', post it into the public domain (or enter it in a contest).
I'd like to challenge those who dare to participate in this "open source" based contest to go ahead and still sell their designs through Gadget Gangster.
Nick is very supportive getting designs on his site. He does not release anything open source unless there is an agreement to do that. I recommend working with Nick to anyone.
Everything has a monetary cost or an opportunity cost. Time is an opportunity cost which is harder to evaluate until reward or waste becomes obvious. Dollar costs can be difficult to understand but are generally more tangible. Things either work out in time or they don't.
I remember someone suggested making the Propeller chip open source hardware .... I don't see how this is this any different.
I could argue, just for the sake of arguing, that if you are not prepared to open source your design for a competition entry there is possibly only one reason for that. You believe it has value that can be realized from selling the thing as a product. Fair enough, nothing wrong with that, we all need to keep money moving around for a healthy economy.
In which case you are already in a competition. The competition for customers money. Your competitors are every other provider in that market, indeed you competitors are the sellers of every other product and service on the planet, consumers dollars may as well go to buying beer as whatever gadget you have.
Therefore, why should said competition provide free advertising for your product?
Therefore, why should said competition provide free advertising for your product?
Competitions are usually held by a manufacturer to gain exposure for their product and to provide success stories based on said product.
That said one could just as easily say, why should a competitor provide free success stories to the manufacture or sponser of the competition?
In this case, I have no issue with the rules, as it is a competition based on existing open source hardware. If someone is opposed to the rules they simply need not compete.
I am not saying this in support of open source, or as any kind of attack on Jazzed. I happen to agree with his sentiment, but the rules are what they are.
I do think Parallax needs to be cautious in all out embracing open source, I see the benefit to them as their primary goal is to sell chips. However, if the expectation that propeller based designs will be open source becomes so high that manufactures and designers fear that they will be shunned if they wish to keep intellectual property proprietary, they need simply choose an alternative MCU.
I'd like to ask folks to move the discussion regarding the value of IP and open source into it's own thread if you don't mind.
As said before, I certainly understand anyone's reservation about creating an open source hardware project, but this contest is directed toward doing exactly that. I'm not going to apologize for it. Those who are participating are of like mind to create new works for the benefit of the community at large. Again, there is certainly no reason that any contest winner can't market the product. This contest is NOT about the creation of commercial products to market. It's about sharing, learning, and having fun doing it.
Most people view others the way they view themselves. I see good folks in these forums who will stand behind these designers and contribute ideas and assistance. I don't see a den of thieves, ready to grab someones good work and run off with it. We are a small, but world-wide community of quality people.
Everyone who can participate in this contest should "just do it". It is good for the community.
My experience with Gadget Gangster has been good so far, and your experience will be good too.
Most likely the winning entry will be something simple but effective that everyone can enjoy.
Simple means: use very few pins, and write software that is easily understood by hobbyists.
Sorry I have been away and busy. I have no problems with the rules. Sorry OBC, but it has been brought up here and I think I should supply some reasoning to support Steve's (jazzed) position.
Steve (jazzed) has not stated, but the pcb manufacture carries a monetary overhead in producing a working pcb which the designer must pay up front. While it varies, it will be at least $100 or more (including postage) per revision. This is a cost which software producers do not incurr.
If I were to enter (no time) I would be happy to provide pcb layouts (as in jpg). However, I am unsure about my opinion on supplying gerbers.
If I were to enter (no time) I would be happy to provide pcb layouts (as in jpg). However, I am unsure about my opinion on supplying gerbers.
Supplying or not supplying Gerbers is NOT a requirement of the contest. What is a requirement is that the project is open sourced and as much information is provided as possible for others to duplicate the success of the project. If someone can't or doesn't have time to create gerbers, a schematic, code, etc will suffice.
All entries should be licensed as Open Source, giving anyone who desires the free license to duplicate, replicate, sell, purchase, the design and it's related software.
Again, contestants who are participating are welcome to sell their works as they see fit, but designs should be understood to be released freely to the public at large. I can't put it any plainer than that. This contest is about community building on the Propeller Platform for the benefit of all those who are using it, and having some fun doing so.
Addendum:
Acceptable entries may include many of the following items:
* Hand Drawn Schematic (scanned into a computer)
* Schematic drawn with any drawing program.
* Schematic drawn in any popular layout software.
* PCB layout done in any popular layout software.
* Videos and explanation of your project.
* Spin/Assembly Source Code
* As much information as you can provide to allow others to replicate your success.
I'm not looking for anyone to spend money on professional designs, buying expensive layout/schematic software. Use the tools that are at your disposal with the abilities that you have. (and perhaps take the opportunity to sharpen your Diptrace, etc skills.) Again, understand that you are releasing your work as Open Source, allowing others to duplicate the work for any reason. At the same time, you are encouraged to work with others (it's part of the score.) and even create a project which can be marketed on Gadget Gangster, (or your own site.)
@davidsaunders: Thanks!! I actually modeled and rendered the whole name, but had to shorten it to become visible in the small avatar space. I still was able to use the large one as the banner on my blog.
@OBC: "All entries should be licensed as Open Source, giving anyone who desires the free license to duplicate, replicate, sell, purchase, the design and it's related software....." Sell? So if I post my schematics, someone else is allowed to get the board made, load it with my code, and sell it as their own? That doesn't sound right......
Open Source provides the license to others to replicate the work. It does not take away your right to do what you will with the design. Think of Open Source as "free speech", not "free beer".
Yes, someone could reproduce the work, sell it, and make a million dollars from it.
At the same time, you also have the right to sell it, and make a million dollars from it.
In reality, this is a small community. I seriously doubt that anyone's efforts will be stepped on. There is much community support and as said before, I don't see a den of thieves here waiting to run off with someone's work. We don't have a dozen people hawking their own versions of the Propeller Platform (which is open source) for the same reasons I don't think we'll see anyone stepping on the neck of a developer without a serious community backlash here.
If I came out on Saturday (UPEW day) on Propeller Powered with my own Propeller Platform for sale, it is certainly free for me to do so, but then what would you guys do to me?
@OBC: "All entries should be licensed as Open Source, giving anyone who desires the free license to duplicate, replicate, sell, purchase, the design and it's related software....." Sell? So if I post my schematics, someone else is allowed to get the board made, load it with my code, and sell it as their own?
That doesn't sound right......
No, it doesn't sound right, but it is as clear as a bell !
Every Propeller Platform Module I've done or Jon has done is open. Every Arduino module that Sparkfun, Adafruit, or Seeed Studio has done is open. But this thread is not the place to examine the economics of open source business models.
Most people only take from open source efforts and never contribute anything. That's fine, but I think Jeff is saying this contest is not for those folks.
In reality, this is a small community. I seriously doubt that anyone's efforts will be stepped on. There is much community support and as said before, I don't see a den of thieves here waiting to run off with someone's work.
It is not the small community here that is a problem. No one here is a thief that I know of. However, all it takes is a good fair volume idea to get things ramped up in a starving most favorite trading status nation. Of course they can take it regardless of adequate documentation or schematic files, etc..., but at least someone will have to work for it. Not having to work for something one way or another is definitely theft in my book.
Open Source provides the license to others to replicate the work. It does not take away your right to do what you will with the design. Think of Open Source as "free speech", not "free beer".
Yes, someone could reproduce the work, sell it, and make a million dollars from it.
At the same time, you also have the right to sell it, and make a million dollars from it.
In reality, this is a small community. I seriously doubt that anyone's efforts will be stepped on. There is much community support and as said before, I don't see a den of thieves here waiting to run off with someone's work. We don't have a dozen people hawking their own versions of the Propeller Platform (which is open source) for the same reasons I don't think we'll see anyone stepping on the neck of a developer without a serious community backlash here.
If I came out on Friday (UPEW day) on Propeller Powered with my own Propeller Platform for sale, it is certainly free for me to do so, but then what would you guys do to me?
OBC
Do you realize how ****ed up this is?
You basically implied that anyone making use of the "rights" of open source is a thief ("I don't see a den of thieves...")
And you implied that you would be doing something wrong by coming out with your own Propeller Platform.
It's like how most of the backers of open source want to say it's open source to feel good about, "giving to the community", but then want to claim some issue of fairness over how it's used.
It's open or it isn't can't have it both ways.
C.W.
P.S. I'm not a fan of open source, just pointing out the inconsistency.
You basically implied that anyone making use of the "rights" of open source is a thief ("I don't see a den of thieves...")
And you implied that you would be doing something wrong by coming out with your own Propeller Platform.
It's like how most of the backers of open source want to say it's open source to feel good about, "giving to the community", but then want to claim some issue of fairness over how it's used.
It's open or it isn't can't have it both ways.
C.W.
P.S. I'm not a fan of open source, just pointing out the inconsistency.
All entries should be licensed as Open Source, giving anyone who desires the free license to duplicate, replicate, sell, purchase, the design and it's related software.
All entries should be considered to be for the benefit of the community at large. Perhaps it would be easy for people to understand the entry as a DONATION of yourself to the Propeller Community. Again, I've been drawn into a debate on Open Source which I didn't want to debate. No ones arm is being twisted here. There are thousands of reasons why Open Source is a good idea spread across the internet. They convey the idea much better than I have. As a recipient of Open Source benefits, I have no issue with contributing my time and talents to projects like this, or asking others to do the same.
Comments
The only thing I think you really need to worry about is someone who can afford to produce many boards based on your design and selling them for less than you can. Is the Propeller board market that large? I haven't seen anyone selling copies of the Gadget Gangster boards which have files that are readily available. I appreciate that Nick makes files available, though, and I have used them to make boards of my own compatible with his (the file for my board is available for free on this forum).
Whichever way OBC (and others) decide to go with the contest, I'm OK with it. If you don't want to give away your IP, don't enter the contest if that's part of the entry conditions.
Jazzed: I'm looking forward to your TetraProp board, open or not.
Now back to the topic of this design competition. I can not help but notice (my mistake I guess), that I am not the only one doing a Video adapter. Beings that one is built around a second Propeller and the other around an ATMega, I think that the results of both efforts will be quite interesting to compare.
You don't have to look too hard
Back to the topic at hand... I think its good to hold IP close for a period of time, and periodically review whether it is worth exploiting. There is always a time vs exploitability equation. Once a good design/concept passes its 'exploit by date', post it into the public domain (or enter it in a contest).
I do that here.
Everything has a monetary cost or an opportunity cost. Time is an opportunity cost which is harder to evaluate until reward or waste becomes obvious. Dollar costs can be difficult to understand but are generally more tangible. Things either work out in time or they don't.
I remember someone suggested making the Propeller chip open source hardware .... I don't see how this is this any different.
Good luck with your contest.
Re, releasing design files.
I could argue, just for the sake of arguing, that if you are not prepared to open source your design for a competition entry there is possibly only one reason for that. You believe it has value that can be realized from selling the thing as a product. Fair enough, nothing wrong with that, we all need to keep money moving around for a healthy economy.
In which case you are already in a competition. The competition for customers money. Your competitors are every other provider in that market, indeed you competitors are the sellers of every other product and service on the planet, consumers dollars may as well go to buying beer as whatever gadget you have.
Therefore, why should said competition provide free advertising for your product?
I don't know what to think.
Competitions are usually held by a manufacturer to gain exposure for their product and to provide success stories based on said product.
That said one could just as easily say, why should a competitor provide free success stories to the manufacture or sponser of the competition?
In this case, I have no issue with the rules, as it is a competition based on existing open source hardware. If someone is opposed to the rules they simply need not compete.
I am not saying this in support of open source, or as any kind of attack on Jazzed. I happen to agree with his sentiment, but the rules are what they are.
I do think Parallax needs to be cautious in all out embracing open source, I see the benefit to them as their primary goal is to sell chips. However, if the expectation that propeller based designs will be open source becomes so high that manufactures and designers fear that they will be shunned if they wish to keep intellectual property proprietary, they need simply choose an alternative MCU.
C.W.
As said before, I certainly understand anyone's reservation about creating an open source hardware project, but this contest is directed toward doing exactly that. I'm not going to apologize for it. Those who are participating are of like mind to create new works for the benefit of the community at large. Again, there is certainly no reason that any contest winner can't market the product. This contest is NOT about the creation of commercial products to market. It's about sharing, learning, and having fun doing it.
Most people view others the way they view themselves. I see good folks in these forums who will stand behind these designers and contribute ideas and assistance. I don't see a den of thieves, ready to grab someones good work and run off with it. We are a small, but world-wide community of quality people.
Thanks
OBC
You asked for it. Don't ask next time.
My experience with Gadget Gangster has been good so far, and your experience will be good too.
Most likely the winning entry will be something simple but effective that everyone can enjoy.
Simple means: use very few pins, and write software that is easily understood by hobbyists.
Good luck.
Thanks,
--trodoss
http://www.savagecircuits.com/forums/showthread.php?637-Unofficial-GG-Platform-Design-contest&p=4848#post4848
OBC
Steve (jazzed) has not stated, but the pcb manufacture carries a monetary overhead in producing a working pcb which the designer must pay up front. While it varies, it will be at least $100 or more (including postage) per revision. This is a cost which software producers do not incurr.
If I were to enter (no time) I would be happy to provide pcb layouts (as in jpg). However, I am unsure about my opinion on supplying gerbers.
Microcontrolled:
I like your new avatar.
Add a link to your project thread from either this thread or the matching one at Savage Circuits.
OBC
Supplying or not supplying Gerbers is NOT a requirement of the contest. What is a requirement is that the project is open sourced and as much information is provided as possible for others to duplicate the success of the project. If someone can't or doesn't have time to create gerbers, a schematic, code, etc will suffice.
OBC
If not, please clarify exactly what you mean.
Again, contestants who are participating are welcome to sell their works as they see fit, but designs should be understood to be released freely to the public at large. I can't put it any plainer than that. This contest is about community building on the Propeller Platform for the benefit of all those who are using it, and having some fun doing so.
Addendum:
Acceptable entries may include many of the following items:
* Hand Drawn Schematic (scanned into a computer)
* Schematic drawn with any drawing program.
* Schematic drawn in any popular layout software.
* PCB layout done in any popular layout software.
* Videos and explanation of your project.
* Spin/Assembly Source Code
* As much information as you can provide to allow others to replicate your success.
I'm not looking for anyone to spend money on professional designs, buying expensive layout/schematic software. Use the tools that are at your disposal with the abilities that you have. (and perhaps take the opportunity to sharpen your Diptrace, etc skills.) Again, understand that you are releasing your work as Open Source, allowing others to duplicate the work for any reason. At the same time, you are encouraged to work with others (it's part of the score.) and even create a project which can be marketed on Gadget Gangster, (or your own site.)
OBC
@OBC: "All entries should be licensed as Open Source, giving anyone who desires the free license to duplicate, replicate, sell, purchase, the design and it's related software....." Sell? So if I post my schematics, someone else is allowed to get the board made, load it with my code, and sell it as their own? That doesn't sound right......
Yes, someone could reproduce the work, sell it, and make a million dollars from it.
At the same time, you also have the right to sell it, and make a million dollars from it.
In reality, this is a small community. I seriously doubt that anyone's efforts will be stepped on. There is much community support and as said before, I don't see a den of thieves here waiting to run off with someone's work. We don't have a dozen people hawking their own versions of the Propeller Platform (which is open source) for the same reasons I don't think we'll see anyone stepping on the neck of a developer without a serious community backlash here.
If I came out on Saturday (UPEW day) on Propeller Powered with my own Propeller Platform for sale, it is certainly free for me to do so, but then what would you guys do to me?
OBC
No, it doesn't sound right, but it is as clear as a bell !
Most people only take from open source efforts and never contribute anything. That's fine, but I think Jeff is saying this contest is not for those folks.
It is not the small community here that is a problem. No one here is a thief that I know of. However, all it takes is a good fair volume idea to get things ramped up in a starving most favorite trading status nation. Of course they can take it regardless of adequate documentation or schematic files, etc..., but at least someone will have to work for it. Not having to work for something one way or another is definitely theft in my book.
Do you realize how ****ed up this is?
You basically implied that anyone making use of the "rights" of open source is a thief ("I don't see a den of thieves...")
And you implied that you would be doing something wrong by coming out with your own Propeller Platform.
It's like how most of the backers of open source want to say it's open source to feel good about, "giving to the community", but then want to claim some issue of fairness over how it's used.
It's open or it isn't can't have it both ways.
C.W.
P.S. I'm not a fan of open source, just pointing out the inconsistency.
It need be stated - It is free for personal use --- BUT not for production
Sapieha,
Not according to this:
C.W.
All entries should be considered to be for the benefit of the community at large. Perhaps it would be easy for people to understand the entry as a DONATION of yourself to the Propeller Community. Again, I've been drawn into a debate on Open Source which I didn't want to debate. No ones arm is being twisted here. There are thousands of reasons why Open Source is a good idea spread across the internet. They convey the idea much better than I have. As a recipient of Open Source benefits, I have no issue with contributing my time and talents to projects like this, or asking others to do the same.
OBC