Not Open Source Hardware.

Hi - that's a very good point which I was thinking about this as I was wondering if I should refer to it as Open Source Hardware. 

I saw that image of a gerber was posted on their blog and the comment was the the design files would be posted eventually.  So I would have to agree with you that currently it doesn't really live up to that definition.  I got the feeling from reading the posts on the Raspberry Pi site that the intention is to be open though.

Cheers,

Drew

I hear you. While the Gerbers + schematics are not strictly open, it seems the founders have embraced an open-source ethos in wanting to introduce accessible design to a new generation of engineers.

Mr. Back,

I would like to point out that it is cheaper to buy a Raspberry Pi than it is to build your own. Why even bother with the PCB files?

If you want to add functionality, would you see a need to go beyond the array of GPIO and other ports?

Cabe

http://twitter.com/Cabe_e14

I am not sure they can make it completely open source anyway as used chip is Broadcom, one of the "sign NDA to get any info" companies, and full datasheet is not available for it. and even if it was, not sure if anyone would be able to purchase those chips in single unit quantities.

Since the RPi fourm is down for today due the launch traffic here is the post I mentioned via Google cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1iF-W6p9Z20J:www.raspberrypi.org/archives/344+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Liz responds in the comments:

We should be publishing the lot later on for everybody when we release the whole design.

There has also been discussion over the closed source nature of the GPU driver.  This post via Google cache has a good overview:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:caVPDOLUgqIJ:www.raspberrypi.org/archives/592+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The Open/Closed source debate can become quite heated, as those perusing the comments and forums may have noticed. As stated above, the host side libraries for the graphics acceleration are closed source and are provided by the SoC supplier. The Foundation has no control over the closed nature of these libraries. Since the vast majority of people simply use libraries such as these, it was deeded a trade off worth making to get the high graphics performance. It’s worth noting there are no other SoC devices with a similar graphics performance that are open source. There is no GPL issue here, these are user side libraries not linked in any way to the kernel.

So I hope that the situation improves over time and the designs are released once things settle down and maybe the propriertary nature of the graphics acceleration could be better addressed.

Cabe,

You've completely missed the point of open source. It's not about what you or I think anyone might want to do, or about our notions of what is and isn't economically viable. The fact is that the term "open source hardware" means something very specific and given where we are on the adoption curve, that tons of the stuff is out there and well known definitions exist, there is no reasonable excuse for bending that defition so far from its intended, and widely accepted, meaning.

I also hear the point about the Broadcom SoC, however, if this were an open source design I could rip that out and replace it with another piece of silicon. Whether or not this would be economically viable, or the RP Foundation or Broadcom would be pleased, would be neither here nor there: with an open source hardware design I would be free to do as I please.

Regards,

Andrew

I agree with your points that it is important not to let the term loose its meaning.  You mentioned that:

having met David and Liz last year and discussed this with them I have a little insight into perhaps why it is, for now at least, a proprietary (closed) hardware design.

Do you mean that this would preclude the schematic and layout from being released?  I know there is some trickiness with the closed nature of the SoC, but I wouldn't have thought that would prevent the release of the board design files.  Maybe there is some NDA ugliness I don't know about though.

Thanks,

Drew

The impression I got was that they had a lot to think about and, at that point, open sourcing the hardware design was not on the top of the list of their priorities. Which is completely understandable and I'd much rather we had the Raspberry Pi than did not!

I also suspected that they felt the need to tread carefully in terms of establishing a sustainable foundation, that will be around for the long haul and that is able to engage in advocacy and to evolve the designs etc. So, as well as wanting to focus on getting the thing out there, they may be looking to recoup a certain amount of investment before opening up the design. This is just a guess, and I'm not saying that this would not be possible with a design that is open from the outset (as the vast majority of OSHW is).

Again and just to be clear: the above is simply the impression that I got — I cannot speak for them.

Regards,

Andrew

Thanks for the insight, and I understand you don't speak for them. 

It seems that open source hardware often lags in adoption behind open source software.  So maybe once these tasty little Linux machines get into folks' hands, the openness on the hardware side will improve, too.  I'm blown away by HDMI and 1080p at such a low price point, but I suppose there is a price to pay in terms of openness for the SoC's awesome performance.

I  would just say, we should forget about that being open source which is not really as of now, and look more into its abilities over a 600$ computer.