[OpenDesign] question on the definition scope

Wed Nov 21 23:54:15 UTC 2012

Hi all,

Quite interesting (and as many have already cited, frustrating)
conversation going on here. I have many responses!

First of all, I think it's safe to say that this sort of conversation is
exactly why Massimo and I wanted to start up the Open Design Working Group
with the Open Knowledge Foundation and its Open Definition <
http://opendefinition.org> ethos to begin with - to start discussing
exactly what design means, what hardware means, what fabrication means, and
when it's appropriate to delineate between these things - to point out
their differences re: physicality, licensing etc - and more importantly,
when it's better to find the *commonalities* between these paradigms and
learn from each other's design-related disciplines to come up with licenses
and definitions and grounding principles that make sense across them.

When I first set up this discussion list, I pored through the 'Open Design
Now' book authored by many present in this list, thinking it would give me
some answers - but what it did was give me even more questions about this
still-emergent field and the various adjectives and sub-topics that can, at
various points, fall under it.

As we move into the New Year, we plan on making this Working Group more
active than it has been before - and adding 'Hardware' to its name as the
field is becoming increasingly important to the work we're all doing as
designers today. While we've already done several workshops and sessions <
http://design.okfn.org/current-projects/> that attempt to teach designers
Github as a collaborative tool to work further on the still-unfinished Open
Design Definition, I'm thinking we now have to move beyond those activities
as a group and dig deeper into these debates.

Organising this year's Open Knowledge Festival <
http://okfestival.org/open-design/>, we saw hardware hackers and designers
and fabbers and machine builders work on some truly fascinating things
together using their commonalities - it would be great to imitate that
energy, somehow, with collaborative digital communities like this one.

So - I'm open to continuing this conversation as long as we can - it's an
important time to be having it!

Kat

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kat Braybrooke | London, UK
| The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>
| Coordinator of OKFestival 2012 <http://okfestival.org/> & Local
Communities <http://okfn.org/chapters>
| Twitter @kat_braybrooke <http://twitter.com/kat_braybrooke> | Skype
@ardent_coeur

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

> On 11/14/2012 05:00 PM, Jorge Toledo wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with Tom and Peter about the important difference between
>> Intellectual Property (copyright) and Industrial Property (patents).
>>
>
> WIPO define Industrial Property as a sub-category of Intellectual
> Property, alongside Copyright:
>
> http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/**en/ <http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/>
>
>
>  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.
>
> "Open Source" was a deliberately corporate friendly re-branding of Free
> Software. To the extent that it is meaningful it does mean the same thing,
> its name just emphasises the means rather than the end.
>
>
>      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"
>>
>
> It would make exercising your *freedom* to modify it *impractical*. Having
> a high-quality, structured, free format version of the design enables
> individuals to excercise that freedom effectively.
>
>
>      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".
>>
>
> Openness is atomic. If you are not free to use the work as you wish, it is
> not "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?
>>
>
> It depends how prior art works. And the GPLv3 includes a patent grant
> where works are covered by patents.
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
> Individuals should be free to use work/resources with only those
> constraints required to protect that freedom and comply with the law.
>
> Openness is just a means to support this freedom, and so it applies to
> anywhere that design work touches on public life.
>
> Since this is an OKF project there's a good guide to what "Open" means in
> the Open Definition.
>
>
> - Rob.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> OpenDesign mailing list
> OpenDesign at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/opendesign<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign>
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**options/opendesign<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/attachments/20121121/bd55a0dd/attachment.html>