[OpenDesign] question on the definition scope

[Heloisa Neves.com]

Dear list,

Reading the mesages, and trying to define (without success) to myself what
is open design, I´m interested in understand why is so difficult to define
Open Design, and easy to construct some practices? We need more time and
experience to define or Open Design is just a way to do things, being
impossible define them for a problem of complexity? Why the conversation
about Open Design Definition always asks for answers about licence.. both
are so connected that is imposible find one without other? Definition
depends of license, depends of understand better the practice to exist?
Depends to understand of we are talking about freedom or open?

I did about 10 interviews for my PhD and all the answers about Open Design
Definition were different in some point... there´s consensus that Open
Design comes from software movement (free software or open source
software?), but it´s difficult to really understand how the concept of
software movement will work with design (the objects are so different). The
licence is a big problem and, personally, I don´t believe that CC or GPL
are prepared to be used for Open Design Projects.

There´s other point that it´s really important:  what designers mean by
design ... Open Design is talking about product, graphic, interaction ...
or everything? The different rules of each specialization may be expanding
and complicating the definition and difficulting it.

I spent this last week at France interviewing some designers about open
design and this question is very important for them: they don´t understand
what´s open design because the word design without your specialization
means nothing. Other people that I talked also highlighted this point: we
are talking about the general concept of open design but the fields are
different and maybe need some generalization for each area... at definition
or licence or both.

Heloisa

2012/11/14 Jorge Toledo <jortogar at gmail.com>

> Hi everyone. Great debate here!
>
> I agree with Tom and Peter about the important difference between
> Intellectual Property (copyright) and Industrial Property (patents).
>
> An interesting thing to bear in mind is that "freedom" and "openness"
> don't mean the same, and that they can be applied in a different way at
> different parts of the design process.
>
> For example, in graphic design I could share a FINISHED artwork (in raster
> format, etc.) with a CC license, which would make it more or less "free".
> But that wouldn't make it "open" as in "open source" unless I also applied
> the basic freedoms to the "source" and distributed the SOURCE (files,
> specifications or score) under similar conditions. So "open design" can be
> also a matter of degree, not just "open" but also "more or less open".
>
> Another example: If an industrial designer wanted to free/open the design
> of a machine, he could release the plans, digital files and specifications
> (which would be the "source" of the finished object) under CC license,
> but... would that be enough to keep the design itself free and prevent
> anyone else from applying a patent on it? Can copyleft secure
> concept/design/invention openness?
>
>
>
> I also agree with Tom that before getting into messy license-related
> details, we should have a clear view of the different "types" of design and
> the ways they relate to freedom/openness. It could be useful to compare
> them looking at their whole creative process and see where it makes more
> sense to apply both principles.
>
> Just to add some more "juice" to the thread: Attached you can find a
> schematic diagram comparing different processes (from left to right:
> software, graphics/video/music, research, object/machine/building
> design. It's part of a "sort of amateur" research I started some months ago
> trying to understand all these things. Here's also a related article (in
> Spanish, sorry) about this kind of comparative study: *Comparing freedom
> in different processes. A model applicable to case study *[
> http://sociarq.net/es/2012/04/comparar-procesos-por-su-grado-de-libertad/
> ].
>
>
> /Jorge
>
>
>
>
> El vie, 9 de nov 2012 a las 1:16 ,Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> escribió:
>
> On 11/08/2012 11:53 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler wrote:
> >
> > Like 'I'm not going to sue you except if you pretend to be me'
>
> As a statement of values this is good. As a statement of intent regarding
> individual works it is best embodied as a license for clarity and
> confidence.
>
> - Rob.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenDesign mailing list
> OpenDesign at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenDesign mailing list
> OpenDesign at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>
>


-- 
*Heloisa Neves*

PhD student - Open Design | Universidade de São Paulo + Univerisdad de
Sevilla
heloisaneves.comheloisaneves.com

Fab Lab Sevilla Team
www.fablabsevilla.us.eswww.fablabsevilla.us.es

mobile:
Spain  +34 603568217
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/attachments/20121114/08da5944/attachment.html>