Dear Sir/Madam,
It is with great interest that I have followed, over the preceding months, the development of the Always Innovating Touchbook. It is for me, without doubt, the most exciting thing to happen in the world of portable computing since Apple’s Newton. Why, then, you might be wondering, will I not be buying one?
I refer you to a phrase with which one is greeted with after following the ‘open source‘ link on your website:
Always Innovating believes that open hardware will stand out in the coming years as open software has done recently…
Seems good so far. However, the passage continues,
…Based on the Beagleboard project, we are providing the design of the Touch Book to parties that show strong commitment to the open source movement. Please follow this link for more information.
This is where, for me, alarm bells begin to ring. What, exactly, is a party that shows strong commitment to the open source movement? Are you in some way implying that, even though your design is heavily based on BeagleBoard, an open-source hardware project, that you are going to be selective about contributing your changes back to the open-source community?
Following the link mentioned above, we are taken to a page which states,
The Always Innovating strongly believes and supports both the open source movement and the recent open hardware efforts. At the same time, we have also been a little bit disappointed by the behavior of some companies who fail to discern open source and one-way self service!
As we will see upon further delving into the text on this page, the above statement is nothing but hypocrisy:
The Touch Book brings a lot of innovation and we feel unconfortable to just throw away all our efforts and let some companies just copy-paste our design for free.
How, in that case, can you claim to support the Open-Source Hardware movement? Anyone can ‘copy-paste’ an Ubuntu CD, and profit off of it, ‘for free’. That is the meaning of freedom in the context of Open Source. Does any one of the thousands of contributors to the project, feel ‘uncomfortable’ about this? Of course not. Instead, they realise that anyone modifying, fixing and re-distibuting Ubuntu can only be a good thing for Ubuntu, at the very least because it promotes Ubuntu and Free/Open Source Software, but also because the mechanics of an Open-Source ecosystem dictate that any positive contribution will either be re-adopted upstream, or form part of a fork, improving quality, diversity and choice. It is in this context that the Touchbook (at least its electrical design) can be considered a fork of BeagleBoard, and in this context that I believe the actions of Always Innovating are in direct violation of the principles of Open Source.
At the same time, this project wouldn’t have been possible without the contribution of thousands of free developers or companies who honestly participate to this echosystem and give back to the community.
I’ll assume you meant ‘ecosystem’. If you really do care for these free developers, just how many of them are likely to get access to you designs under your current programme? Is someone who provided a vital bug report to one of the hundreds of open-source software products used in the Touchbook’s OS, deemed worthy of gaining access to your designs? Is an electrical engineer who has no provable contribution to open-source software or hardware, but a moral and ethical feeling of responsibility to honour the terms of an open-source license, likely to be able to view circuit schematics and hence improve the touchbook? Is the 19-year-old product design student, who knows not a thing about programming, but has a healthy interest in the mechanical design of computers, and a strong will to contribute design ideas to open-source hardware products, ever likely to see a CAD drawing of the Touchbook? Moreover, is anyone who does acquire designs from you allowed to redistribute them?
You have seen from the examples cited above that, with an Open-Source hardware project, it is extremely difficult for one to establish precedent for support of Open-Source, because most of the Open-Source movement until this point has been focussed on software. The simple fact is that a large number of Open-Source supporters are not software developers.
Lack of precedent in Open Hardware, of course, also affects companies like you, and I do understand that. However, instead of playing God and choosing who is and is not worthy of seeing your designs, would it not have been wiser to invest in the development of a true, Open-Source compliant hardware license, which would protect your rights aswell of those of the rest of the open-source community? Even without hardware equivalents of the GPL and BSD licenses, how can commercially-supported projects like Arduino, OpenMoko and, of course, BeagleBoard survive without having to resort to a policy like your own?
Supporters of Free/Open Source Software have made sure that no-one should be able to redistribute compiled code, wihout making the source code to their modifications easily-available. In the same way, should supporters of Free/Open Source Hardware not make sure that no-one should be allowed to distribute physical products based on open designs, without also sharing the relevant ‘source code’ (eg. hardware schematics, CAD files, part lists, design documents)? In other words, should all of these documents not be freely accessible to ayone who purchases a Touchbook?
To claim otherwise, as you do, fundementally opposes the Open Source movement. I understand that the stance you are taking may not be in violation of BeagleBoard’s licensing terms. However, it would seem to some that, in placing arbitary contraints on access to your designs, your so-called ‘support’ of open-source hardware is merely a masquerade; a marketing gimmick, employed only for the gain of your own profits. Open-source is not a one-way street, and Always Innovating cannot claim to be a supporter of Open-Source Hardware while keeping its revisions to the BeagleBoad framework to itself, and only releasing even its own designs to those whom it deems worthy.
It is therefore with disappointment that I am ubable to buy a Touchbook, until ether truly open and free access to the designs is established, or Always Innovating ceases to claim that the Touchbook is open hardware.
Yours faithfully,
A concerned supporter of the Open-Source Hardware movement