Not Open Source Hardware.

Interesting thing about this device is that it isn't much different from cheap wifi routers, except routers do not have GPU, but have case, wall wart and wifi built in. Nobody gets too excited about cheap wifi routers these days
So what is so much different about Raspberry Pi?

I think this thread is hilarious. someone said open source hardware instead of open source.

Having been up since 5 am and still not managing to order one, I think some should unregister their interest to spend some more time discussing this, and allow me to move up the queue.

He He. Just injecting a bit of lightheartedness to lighten my foul mood at not getting an order in.... !!

There has been a lot of interesting and useful discussion. And again, just to make clear, I think that the RP is incredibly worthwhile, a great achievement, and I'm not criticising the RP Foundation here for the approach that they have taken. Rather instead I'm calling out the error in referring to this as "open source hardware" — which it emphatically is not.

Open source hardware means something very specific, as does open source software, and "open source" in and of itself is ambigous. I've heard quite a few times the RP being referred to as open source hardware, with comparisons being made to Arduino and BeagleBoard etc, and this is extremely misleading and akin to suggesting that MS Word is open source because you could write an open source novel using it.

The open source hardware movement has seen exponential growth, is receiving a lot of interest, and with players such as Facebook and Ford Motor investing heavily, and coverage from the likes of Forbes and the Economist etc. The conflation of markedly proprietary hardware and open source hardware is most unhelpful, and does a disservice to those who take the leap of faith and publish hardware design artefacts under a liberal license.

On of the matter of using non-open source components in a design — we mostly don't have much choice, and the generally accepted community norm would be open source schematics, BoM and Gerbers, and HDL source too if there is there is an FPGA in the design. If you produce a design with no schematics made available under a liberal license, it cannot be regarded as open source hardware. Simple.

Finally, and just to make absolutely clear: I'm not downplaying the RP, and I'm not nit-picking — but to call the RP open source hardware is disingenous at best.

There has been a lot of interesting and useful discussion. And again, just to make clear, I think that the RP is incredibly worthwhile, a great achievement, and I'm not criticising the RP Foundation here for the approach that they have taken. Rather instead I'm calling out the error in referring to this as "open source hardware" — which it emphatically is not.

Open source hardware means something very specific, as does open source software, and "open source" in and of itself is ambigous. I've heard quite a few times the RP being referred to as open source hardware, with comparisons being made to Arduino and BeagleBoard etc, and this is extremely misleading and akin to suggesting that MS Word is open source because you could write an open source novel using it.

The open source hardware movement has seen exponential growth, is receiving a lot of interest, and with players such as Facebook and Ford Motor investing heavily, and coverage from the likes of Forbes and the Economist etc. The conflation of markedly proprietary hardware and open source hardware is most unhelpful, and does a disservice to those who take the leap of faith and publish hardware design artefacts under a liberal license.

On of the matter of using non-open source components in a design — we mostly don't have much choice, and the generally accepted community norm would be open source schematics, BoM and Gerbers, and HDL source too if there is there is an FPGA in the design. If you produce a design with no schematics made available under a liberal license, it cannot be regarded as open source hardware. Simple.

Finally, and just to make absolutely clear: I'm not downplaying the RP, and I'm not nit-picking — but to call the RP open source hardware is disingenous at best.