6 ms·

"that board isn't open hardware: there aren't open source layout files or open source editable schematics and the components in the bill of materials aren't rea

by proee 12y ago

"that board isn't open hardware: there aren't open source layout files or open source editable schematics and the components in the bill of materials aren't readily available" This is talking about Arduino of course, and I do wish they would stop using the word "open-source" if they don't bother to document the hardware they "open." Throwing a half-documented Eagle file over the wall doesn't count. If they really want to open-source the design of the arduino, they'd publish an official Bill-of-Materials for the project. Edit: They'd also include official gerber files

sswezey 12y ago
They're referring to the Raspberry Pi. The Broadcom chip on it is not open or documented. The Arduino is from Italy.
- proee 12y ago
  Ok, you're right. I've never had a problem with the Pi because they've never claimed to be "open source"
- Narishma 12y ago
  The GPU on the other hand (which is part of the chip) is much more documented on the Raspberry Pi than the Beagle Bone.
learc83 12y ago
They're talking about the Raspberry Pi not Arduino. Raspberry Pi has always said publicly that the whole thing was never likely to be open source.
- proee 12y ago
  You're correct. I jumped the gun and pointed to the Arduino - which is claiming to be open source. I've never had an issue with the Pi because they've never claimed to be open source.
hugs 12y ago
I have a crazy theory: There is no such thing as open source hardware. It's a myth. If a project has any electronics, there's a closed bit in there somewhere. Even if there are published layout files, the chip is still closed. Can anyone fab their own chip? Same goes for BeagleBone, which drives demand for (closed) TI-based ARM chips.
- proee 12y ago
  This is true, but given the Arduino does not publish Official gerber and BOM, there's zero chance to recreate the hardware without guessing/reverse engineering. The specs are not version controlled for public consumption. So the arduino "platform" is not open in that you/I do not have an offical specification to work from.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - sokoloff 12y ago
    What about the BOM can you not derive from buying an Arduino and looking at it alongside the Atmel datasheets? Sure, it might be easier and $25 cheaper for you if they published a text file, but it's not like you have to reverse engineer a spaceship to make an Arduino clone or derivative product. Evidence: there's a wide selection of Arduino compatible boards on the market today. IMO, publishing the Eagle file is better than publishing the Gerbers. It's roughly the equivalent of publishing source code instead of binaries. I'm genuinely curious what isn't open-source about Arduino in your opinion?
    - proee 12y ago
      It's great they provide the eagle files. However when you generate gerber files there are often a lot of settings to configure depending on how you want the files generated. So it's certainly possible for someone (especially a noob) to generate the wrong gerber data set for a given eagle file. It would be great if they included the eagle file, official bom, and offical gerber data set all in github. I suspect they do this internally, but they certainly don't give the public access to this information.
jotux 12y ago
>Throwing a half-documented Eagle file over the wall doesn't count. The eagle sch/brd files are the source. >If they really want to open-source the design of the arduino, they'd publish an official Bill-of-Materials for the project. You can export the bom from the sch file in eagle with the bom.ulp script. >They'd also include official gerber files And you can generate the gerbers from the brd files... These arguments are ridiculous and are akin to saying, "this software project isn't open source because all they provide is a the source code and build scripts!"
- proee 12y ago
  With all due respect, have you tried generating a BOM out of the "source" files? You can't because a huge portion of the parts don't contain the mfg. part numbers. If they had provided all this info in the eagle files, then yes - it would be a valid file. They conveniently left it out. I guarantee somewhere in the company they have a complete BOM for the arduino, but they certainly don't publish it on their website. The only BOMs I've found have been through reverse engineer community efforts.
  - jotux 12y ago
    The arduino hardware is so trivially simple I can't see how anyone would see this as a problem. What you're complaining about is a non-issue.
    - proee 12y ago
      It's not. Take for example the pushbutton switch on the arduino uno - it has a very specific one-of-a-kind footprint. So if you don't have the mfg part number, there's no way to populate the PCB. You're literally going to have to re-layout the board and choose your own. And what if the debouncing of the new switch is different than the original and doesn't work with their firmware. Providing the mfg for ALL the part numbers is critical in hardware design. In a lot of cases, where hardware is mission critical (like space or medial), if one single mfg part number changes or the source manufacuture changes, the entire system needs to be requalified/tested because of the larger ramifications. If you start willy-nilly grabbing parts off the shelf that might work, you're going to eventually get burned. My request is simple - if you're publishing an open source projet, please publish the offical BOM that the platform was validated under, and put the BOM in source control should a part become discontinued and need a replacement. This is standard for any hardware product. Edit: The switch mfg part number is actually a real problem. See this person who tried to reverse engineer the part number. Notice the ??? in the mfg? Google doesn't return much with that part number. If you can find the actual mfg datasheet for that part number I'd love to know. I have no idea where to order that switch. http://mburdis.com/BOM_Ardiuno_UNO_Rev3.html http://mburdis.com/BOM_Ardiuno_UNO_Rev3.html

by proee 12y ago

sswezey 12y ago

They're referring to the Raspberry Pi. The Broadcom chip on it is not open or documented. The Arduino is from Italy.

proee 12y ago
Ok, you're right. I've never had a problem with the Pi because they've never claimed to be "open source"
Narishma 12y ago
The GPU on the other hand (which is part of the chip) is much more documented on the Raspberry Pi than the Beagle Bone.

learc83 12y ago

They're talking about the Raspberry Pi not Arduino. Raspberry Pi has always said publicly that the whole thing was never likely to be open source.

proee 12y ago
You're correct. I jumped the gun and pointed to the Arduino - which is claiming to be open source. I've never had an issue with the Pi because they've never claimed to be open source.

hugs 12y ago

I have a crazy theory: There is no such thing as open source hardware. It's a myth. If a project has any electronics, there's a closed bit in there somewhere. Even if there are published layout files, the chip is still closed. Can anyone fab their own chip? Same goes for BeagleBone, which drives demand for (closed) TI-based ARM chips.

proee 12y ago
This is true, but given the Arduino does not publish Official gerber and BOM, there's zero chance to recreate the hardware without guessing/reverse engineering. The specs are not version controlled for public consumption. So the arduino "platform" is not open in that you/I do not have an offical specification to work from.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 12y ago
  What about the BOM can you not derive from buying an Arduino and looking at it alongside the Atmel datasheets? Sure, it might be easier and $25 cheaper for you if they published a text file, but it's not like you have to reverse engineer a spaceship to make an Arduino clone or derivative product. Evidence: there's a wide selection of Arduino compatible boards on the market today. IMO, publishing the Eagle file is better than publishing the Gerbers. It's roughly the equivalent of publishing source code instead of binaries. I'm genuinely curious what isn't open-source about Arduino in your opinion?
  - proee 12y ago
    It's great they provide the eagle files. However when you generate gerber files there are often a lot of settings to configure depending on how you want the files generated. So it's certainly possible for someone (especially a noob) to generate the wrong gerber data set for a given eagle file. It would be great if they included the eagle file, official bom, and offical gerber data set all in github. I suspect they do this internally, but they certainly don't give the public access to this information.

jotux 12y ago

>Throwing a half-documented Eagle file over the wall doesn't count. The eagle sch/brd files are the source. >If they really want to open-source the design of the arduino, they'd publish an official Bill-of-Materials for the project. You can export the bom from the sch file in eagle with the bom.ulp script. >They'd also include official gerber files And you can generate the gerbers from the brd files... These arguments are ridiculous and are akin to saying, "this software project isn't open source because all they provide is a the source code and build scripts!"

proee 12y ago
With all due respect, have you tried generating a BOM out of the "source" files? You can't because a huge portion of the parts don't contain the mfg. part numbers. If they had provided all this info in the eagle files, then yes - it would be a valid file. They conveniently left it out. I guarantee somewhere in the company they have a complete BOM for the arduino, but they certainly don't publish it on their website. The only BOMs I've found have been through reverse engineer community efforts.
- jotux 12y ago
  The arduino hardware is so trivially simple I can't see how anyone would see this as a problem. What you're complaining about is a non-issue.
  - proee 12y ago
    It's not. Take for example the pushbutton switch on the arduino uno - it has a very specific one-of-a-kind footprint. So if you don't have the mfg part number, there's no way to populate the PCB. You're literally going to have to re-layout the board and choose your own. And what if the debouncing of the new switch is different than the original and doesn't work with their firmware. Providing the mfg for ALL the part numbers is critical in hardware design. In a lot of cases, where hardware is mission critical (like space or medial), if one single mfg part number changes or the source manufacuture changes, the entire system needs to be requalified/tested because of the larger ramifications. If you start willy-nilly grabbing parts off the shelf that might work, you're going to eventually get burned. My request is simple - if you're publishing an open source projet, please publish the offical BOM that the platform was validated under, and put the BOM in source control should a part become discontinued and need a replacement. This is standard for any hardware product. Edit: The switch mfg part number is actually a real problem. See this person who tried to reverse engineer the part number. Notice the ??? in the mfg? Google doesn't return much with that part number. If you can find the actual mfg datasheet for that part number I'd love to know. I have no idea where to order that switch. http://mburdis.com/BOM_Ardiuno_UNO_Rev3.html http://mburdis.com/BOM_Ardiuno_UNO_Rev3.html