2 ms·
The definition from OSHWA is tailored for hardware. OSI has the authorative for software. But yeah, music and graphics frequently also don't include the actual
by jononor 9y ago
The definition from OSHWA is tailored for hardware. OSI has the authorative for software.
But yeah, music and graphics frequently also don't include the actual 'source' - just a rendered output. This is way better that having a propiatary license on the output, but does not fulfill the full potential.
Some of it has to so with the tools and proceses, which frequently aren't really built to make collaborating on the source materials easy. And often the formats and tools used are proprietary. Freeware VSTs abound for instance...
- iuguy 9y agoPerhaps a key difference is that OSHWA isn't authoritative. OSHWA are the FSF of hardware. As far as they're concerned, only their certification constitutes open hardware. Everyone else is wrong. Sound familiar? As someone else pointed out, a lot of people don't provide BOM files, including people who have OSHWA certified hardware.