11–20 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, looks like some parts are patented. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1
Correct. What should I replace "FOSS" with so that the title stays short and concise but correctly reflects the licensing/rights situation? I'm very new to posting on this platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, looks like some parts are patented. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1
Correct. What should I replace "FOSS" with so that the title stays short and concise but correctly reflects the licensing/rights situation? I'm very new to posting on this platform.
"Source available" is a term that usually no one gets mad at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, looks like some parts are patented. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1
Correct. What should I replace "FOSS" with so that the title stays short and concise but correctly reflects the licensing/rights situation? I'm very new to posting on this platform.
The thread title as of this moment (subject to moderator edit) says "source available" which seems reasonable. So I don't think you made a mistake. "With published design" might also work.
I've got my own little GitHub page with projects that I share. They usually involve both hardware and code. I'm also not an engineer, but a scientist and electronics hobbyist, both of which have cultures of open design that predate the software industry. What I do with my projects is attach a MIT license, attribute the sources of any code or ideas that I borrow from elsewhere, and wish you good luck. ;-)
For comparison, this is what $2 USB scope (800ksps, 2 voltage ranges) look like: https://files.catbox.moe/0t0dq3.jpg
Edit: Licensing consists of ARR, Public Domain and MIT. https://github.com/rtestardi/StickOS2/blob/main/license.txt https://github.com/rtestardi/usbte/blob/master/LICENSE
edit: parent was heavily edited, so this comment makes less sense now. Note that calling this FOSS is completely inaccurate. Some parts are all rights reserved, some are public domain and some are only available for non-commercial use. Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). Restricting commercial use is also not free. At best, this project is partially source-available.
How so? There are no restrictions on use or distribution.
> Restricting commercial use is also not free.
I agree, and I would include neutering any commercial uses, in which case GPL is non-free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All Rights Reserved (ARR)
Also, looks like some parts are patented. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117587B1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
edit: parent was heavily edited, so this comment makes less sense now. Note that calling this FOSS is completely inaccurate. Some parts are all rights reserved, some are public domain and some are only available for non-commercial use. Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). Restricting commercial use is also not free. At best, this project is partially source-available.
The only thing more frustrating than a rustacaen redefining "safety" to suit their purpose is a Stallman discipline redefining freedom to mean something totally weird. Something in the public domain is not free? Give me a break.
Nowadays, very good oscilloscopes with 200 MHz bandwidth, good user interfaces, and responsive displays are selling for $300 - I'm talking Siglent, Rigol, UNI-T. So the merits of DIYing something much worse just aren't quite there. It's that one piece of equipment you use to troubleshoot all your other designs, so you want it to be dependable, easy to use, and accurate.
This is not to say it's not a fun, geeky project to work on and publish... but you know, only once you have a real oscilloscope. If you're just setting up, do yourself a favor and spend a bit more money on this. The remaining equipment is not nearly as critical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
edit: parent was heavily edited, so this comment makes less sense now. Note that calling this FOSS is completely inaccurate. Some parts are all rights reserved, some are public domain and some are only available for non-commercial use. Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). Restricting commercial use is also not free. At best, this project is partially source-available.
> Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative (OSI) recognize public domain software as "free software," but not as open source, but as I understand it, it's not that different from MIT licensed software. Someone can take MIT licensed code, make changes, sell the resulting binary as proprietary code and no one else is allowed…
[1] https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
