gemini://jsreed5.org/log/2024/202403/20240321-what-counts-as-open-source-hardware.gmi

I am a big believer in free and open-source software: it's one of the primary reasons I switch to Linux years ago. As part of my interest in decentralized infrastructure, I'd like to see open-source hardware and firmware receive a similar amount of attention.

My ClockworkPi DevTerm RPi-CM4 is often cited as an example of open-source hardware. Schematics, datasheets and 3D model files for the components used in it are freely available on ClockworkPi's GitHub page^. Other open-source hardware projects include the Reform laptop^^ and the RISC-V processor architecture.^^^

These are all excellent projects, and I love my DevTerm--I write this very log on it. But contemplating open-source hardware raises a question with me: what precisely does or doesn't constitute open-source in the hardware sphere, and how closely do current OSH projects align with the spirit of open-source hardware?

I can use the information in ClockworkPi's GitHub repositories to 3D-print a new case for the DevTerm, a new paper roll, and even a new keyboard. But the heart of my DevTerm is a Raspberry Pi CM4. As much as I love Raspberry Pi SBCs, they are not open-source hardware. Neither is the screen of the DevTerm: the datasheet ClockworkPi include in their repository tells me how to use the screen at a low level, but not how to manufacture a replacement screen of my own. The hardware and software of the DevTerm's micro-HDMI port are definitely not open-source. The only things I can really make on my own are glorified circuit boards and plastic brackets--I can't actually make a functional computer solely out of the parts I have the schematics to.

To me, the spirit of open-source hardware is that I can create my own version (or even an exact copy) of a given part independently. However, I can't build my own processor chip and HDMI port. It would be one thing if I merely didn't have the necessary materials and equipment to do so, but I have no schematics or manufacturing instructions, so I can't even make one in theory. Can computers that contain these components really be considered open-source hardware?

How far should this logic go? Suppose we have all the instructions for how to turn silicon into a processor or RAM sticks, but the process for refining silicon to semiconductor grade is a secret. Do components made with that process still count as open-source?

This reminds me of the problem of trying to calculate the CO2-equivalent cost of producing an item in the economy. Should we count the cost of all the items used to make that item? What about all the items used to make those?

Clearly the line doesn't need to be advanced that far. It's obviously not necessary to know how raw materials are mined and how the logistical systems of the transports carrying them work in order to build my own copy of a device. But the line seems fuzzy to me. And sometimes it feels that some groups use the term too liberally, open-sourcing components that are glorified accessories. I at least feel there should be greater focus on the potential concept of fabricating full electronic components, like chips and microcode, using only independent tools.

What Counts as Open-Source Hardware?

2024-03-21