[Open Design + Hardware] Open Design Definition @ OKFestival 2014

Tue May 20 12:51:28 UTC 2014

Dear Massimo, dear all,

as we are preparing the German version of the Open Design Definition in 
our local group, I'd like to help in Berlin as well. I will be there 
already on the 15th.

If wanted, we could find a date to make a skype-meeting to speak about 
the different perspectives about the definition and the presentation in 
Berlin directly. What do you say?

Best regards,
Magdalena

On 5/13/14 10:33 AM, Massimo Menichinelli wrote:
> Hi Peter, Christian, all
> thank you very much! :) I forgot to add, sorry: the organizers told me 
> that there will be a briefing for all session organisers on Tuesday 
> 15th in the morning, so you need to be in Berlin by then. Is it still 
> ok for you? Let me know!
>
> There are no problems at all with not reaching version 1.0, I'd prefer 
> that we do it more slowly but with more discussion than to just reach 
> it for the sake of publishing the definition and closing the project 
> (which will probably last longer with less activity after 1.0). We can 
> also try to continue its discussion at Open Hardware Summit. It is 
> currently version 0.3, so we have still a lot to do!
>
> You're right about IP, let me reframe it: I was thinking "critical" 
> more for the part that I was working on in the definition than 
> generally critical for Open Design. Though there is a lot of 
> discussion also on the Open Hardware Association mailing list 
> regarding IP and Open Hardware, and it's a never ending problem that 
> we still have to face, with people attaching Creative Commons to 
> anything (even when it does not work because it's not copyright) or 
> without a clear idea about what to do with IP or just in search for 
> the perfect ultimate license (even if maybe it doesn't work with that 
> specific IP). Maybe we should also say in the definition that CC, 
> other licenses or any other practice do not give you any 100% 
> protection security, only well paid lawyers do. I guess that IP is 
> more important for people who are already convinced to do Open Design, 
> than to people who are just approaching the topic.
>
> I think that the problem you raised with the topic Open Access vs. 
> Open Contribution is very important, so it would be a good idea to 
> discuss this topic and add a section to the definition. It could bring 
> to a (new or the same) section regarding the motivations for doing 
> Open Design, something that is not present yet in the definition but 
> could be very important to elaborate.
> So one idea for the Festival would be to focus specifically on this 
> topic in order to add a new section, and then if there's time or 
> anybody has ideas for the existing parts, new issues / comments can be 
> made. What do you think about it?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Massimo
>
> Il 13/05/14 08:48, Christian Villum ha scritto:
>> Hi Massimo, Peter,
>>
>> I'll also be at OKFestival and would be happy to give a hand with this
>> session if helpful. I must admit though that I haven't been too involved
>> with the work on the open design definition so far, but would be happy
>> to contribute nonetheless. If nothing else, I plan to attend the session
>> and take part in the discussion.
>>
>> Interesting thoughts here, Peter - I agree with your concerns and find
>> it relevant in other fields as well, although it's particularly
>> interesting in the design field because of it's "low-ip" nature, as you
>> also point out. I guess the question is whether the definition should
>> explicitly address this or rather leave it be an implicit factor (I'm
>> not saying that it should). Will look forward to this discussion!
>>
>> -Christian
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Christian Villum
>> International Community Manager
>>
>> skype: christianvillum  | @villum <http://www.twitter.com/villum>
>> Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/>/ - See how data can change the world
>> /http://okfn.org/ | @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> Facebook
>> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> | Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <trox at fabfolk.com
>> <mailto:trox at fabfolk.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Massimo
>>
>>     very sorry to hear that you won’t be able to make it to Berlin in
>>     July … I’m planning to be there for sure.  So I sure could happily
>>     step in to facilitate the discussion.
>>
>>     However, I’ve got an issue that I’d like to share with the group and
>>     get some feedback (see below).  The risk, however, is, that my issue
>>     would possibly dominate the discourse in a way that is not exactly
>>     helping to close the definition towards 1.0 but rather to open the
>>     discussion … Thoughts welcome!
>>
>>     / Peter
>>
>>
>>     So here I go:
>>
>>     Over the past months I’ve come to the conclusion that focusing on
>>     “intellectual property” as “the most critical part” (as you phrase
>>     it) is distracting the discussion from the more important questions
>>     of the role of the designer in open design.
>>
>>     In a nutshell, the current (self-)image of the designer is impeding
>>     open design to succeed.
>>
>>     Expanding on that: Alastair Fuad-Luke reports finding it hard to
>>     involve fashion designers in an “open fashion” project (despite
>>     fashion recognized as a “low-ip” field of design, [1]).  At various
>>     conferences I found designers blurring or even confusing their role
>>     of social activists and professional designers in social
>>     interventions (most recently at the Cumulus conference in Aveiro, 
>> PT).
>>
>>     I am arguing (in a model developed with colleagues) that “open” has
>>     two dimensions, open access and open contribution and that the
>>     discussion on open design has been focused too much on the “access”
>>     dimension and not sufficiently on the “contribution” dimension — or
>>     in more detail: that the contribution dimension stops at “co-design”
>>     or any other designer-led format but fails to develop “open design”
>>     beyond a situation where designers are not in the lead (for the sake
>>     of the argument I understand “facilitation” as “lead”). Imho, in a
>>     real open design situation designers should only provide the
>>     methods, but not apply/execute them (facilitation).
>>
>>
>>     [1] Raustiala, K. and Sprigman, C.J. (2012). The Piracy Paradox:
>>     Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Virginia Law
>>     Review, (92) 8, pp. 1687-1777, online at
>>     http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1687.pdf (accessed
>>     20 September 2012).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 12 May 2014, at 18:48, Massimo Menichinelli
>>     <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi
>>     <mailto:massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi>> wrote:
>>
>>     > Dear all,
>>     > I proposed a workshop for discussing the Open Design Definition 
>> at OKFestival 2014 in Berlin, and the workshop was accepted. The bad 
>> news is, even if I would really love to meet you all there, 
>> unfortunately I cannot make it to Berlin for the Festival this year. 
>> I had a change in plans and I will move to a new city just 1 day 
>> after the Festival, so it is really hard for me to be there. It would 
>> be great therefore if any of you is going to be at the Festival and 
>> would like to facilitate an Open Design Definition workshop.
>>     > There is no need to do a lot of work, maybe we will complete 
>> the definition at a later stage (maybe with another workshop at the 
>> Open Hardware Summit for example?), but it would be great to have a 
>> discussion on its current status and how it could be improved. 
>> Everything can be done just with issues and comments on GitHub, so 
>> there is no need for using Git: everything can be done like it were a 
>> Facebook group (but if you want, you can edit the code directly 
>> online or with fork/pull request of course).
>>     > For the workshop, you can even access the project and work with 
>> a mobile:
>>     > GitHub for Android:http://mobile.github.com/
>>     > GitHub for iPhone:http://ioctocat.com/
>>     >
>>     > As you can read from the previous e-mail below, now the most 
>> important part of the definition regards how it is possible to deal 
>> with intellectual property for making Open Design possible. This is 
>> the most critical part where we need more discussion, especially with 
>> IP experts. But other parts of the definition can still be discussed 
>> of course.
>>     >
>>     > Is anybody interested in facilitating this workshop?
>>     > If you are interested in this, please let me know and I will 
>> put you in contact with the organizers.
>>     >
>>     > Best regards,
>>     >
>>     > Massimo
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > -------- Messaggio originale --------
>>     > Oggetto: Re: [Open Design + Hardware] legal paper on design
>>     > Data: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:10:24 +0100
>>     > Mittente: Massimo Menichinelli <massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi 
>> <mailto:massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi>>
>>     > A: <opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>>
>>     >
>>     > Hi Tom (and all),
>>     > I've finally had the time to read 2-3 times your paper, so I 
>> finally can
>>     > reply. First of all, thank you very much for sharing it, and 
>> thanks for
>>     > the effort of making clearer this topic of IP and Open Design. 
>> I would
>>     > say that this is a big step forward for all of us, even if the 
>> paper
>>     > considers only the European context it is the first real 
>> research I've
>>     > encountered on the issue (so it's really a milestone!).
>>     >
>>     > It has been very useful for me in order to work on the Open Design
>>     > Definition. If you remember it, we were about to specify all the
>>     > different forms of IP that can be applied to any design 
>> project, and
>>     > what to do with each form of IP in order to share the project 
>> and make
>>     > it Open Design. I hope to have understood well your paper, I've 
>> used a
>>     > lot of content from it, please have a look at the last version 
>> of the
>>     > Open Design Definition here:
>>     >
>> >https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/blob/master/open.design_definition/open.design.definition.md
>>     >
>>     > Please also remember that you can directly edit in the browser 
>> the file
>>     > by going to this link:
>> >https://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/edit/master/open.design_definition/open.design.definition.md
>>     >
>>     > But you can also reply to this e-mail, and I will work on the 
>> definition
>>     > considering your e-mails.
>>     > We still need to focus on the patents, trade mark and trade 
>> dress before
>>     > completing this section (and therefore the real first version 
>> of the
>>     > definition, let's say that it will be with version 0.5).
>>     >
>>     > Look forward to reading your comments on the topic! :)
>>     >
>>     > Best regards,
>>     >
>>     > Massimo
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Il 02/12/13 16:10, t. ha scritto:
>>     >> Dear all,
>>     >>
>>     >> a paper on legal aspects of design rights and copyright in the 
>> EU, with
>>     >> some creative commons licenses. A bit long, but should be of some
>>     >> interests to this list.
>>     >>
>>     >>http://ssrn.com/abstract=2361682
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Best,
>>     >>
>>     >> tom
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> opendesign mailing list
>>     >>opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto: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 <tel:%2B39%203402971655>
>>     > Skype:openp2pdesign.org <http://openp2pdesign.org>
>>     >http://it.linkedin.com/in/massimomenichinelli
>>     >openp2pdesign.org <http://openp2pdesign.org>
>>     > Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects
>>     >http://www.openp2pdesign.org/
>>     > 
>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > opendesign mailing list
>>     >opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
>>     >https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>>     > Unsubscribe:https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > opendesign mailing list
>>     >opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
>>     >https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>>     > Unsubscribe:https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     opendesign mailing list
>>     opendesign at lists.okfn.org <mailto:opendesign at lists.okfn.org>
>>     https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/opendesign
>>     Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/opendesign
>>
>>
>

-- 

*Magdalena Reiter*

BLOG
www.makedesignopen.com

WORKS
www.magdalenareiter.at

PHONE
+43 699 18041740

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/attachments/20140520/d66d8fb5/attachment-0002.html>