[Open Design] Two simple questions about The Definition

Massimo Menichinelli massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi
Mon Mar 4 15:23:54 UTC 2013

Hi Petri,
there are many reasons for developing an Open Design definition. Some of 
them are similar to the reasons for developing an Open Definition (Open 
Source, Open Data, Open Hardwre, ...) for example stating in a clear and 
shared way what it is (there is a lot of confusion about it), how we 
should/could address it, maybe clarifying the situation regarding IP law 
for it, localizing its position regarding other forms of Open Knowledge. 
And more important for me, building a community around the concept of 
Open Design that has a shared agreement about it and it is the starting 
point for other projects and collaboration.

We are doing in a collaborative way in order to have a shared decision 
about it, instead of having one-way communication of what Open Design is.


On 2/28/13 11:11 PM, Petri Kola wrote:
>>> What do we need an open design definition for?
>>> Leaving a mark on history doesn't count as an answer.
>>> What will its impact be?
>> Defining it just because it can be defined or derived is not a good answer either.
> Legitimizing our statuses as designers is a bad answer.
> _______________________________________________
> OpenDesign mailing list
> OpenDesign at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign

Massimo Menichinelli
mobile: (ITA) +39 3402971655 (FIN) +358 505981442
Skype: openp2pdesign.org
Aalto University
Aalto Media Factory - Aalto FabLab (Producer for the FabLab activities)
Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects

More information about the opendesign mailing list