Talk:Open-design movement

Comment

Need this article be so biased towards CAD and CAD technologies? Essentially open design is more about the sharing of knowledge and development data in whatever form that may take. I would like to see a more basic definition, that would better encompass existing and previous examples of open collaborative design, from Papanek's examples of appropriate technology to the burgeoning resources on home designed and built items now seen on the internet ('hack' if you will). What do others think? Royshearer 13:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a completely valid point. I added the section about CAD as it will become necessary for more advanced collaborative design projects, but as you rightly say, there is plenty more to open design as well. Feel free to add to the article - CharlesC 17:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deledted the synusia.org link because there has been no devolopement on their web space in several months, and the site is just a few links to papers about open source.

Trying to organize the links

Hi, it seems that the links on this page occupy more space then the content. I think that many of the links are only extremely loosely related to open design, and as such should be removed. The remaining links should be organized in a better fashion. I will go through the links and remove the dead weight. If i removed something important, please put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazcazcaz (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Design and Intellectual Property

I think that it would be a good idea for someone to analyse, at a basic level perhaps, how it is that the Open Design and Collaborative Design Process Interacts with pre-existing intellectual property rights, laws and patents also. It is highly probable that large companies and organisations would seek to prevent certain technologies that they have a stake in from being made as freely available as would be the case when considering Open Design.

This is already the case in a great many ways - the manufacture of cheaper drugs in the developing world has to be balanced against patents for those drugs. However, the patenst system is meant to safeguard companies that invest time and effort into drugs development. Some analysis of how it is that the current patents system aids the status quo of private and elite organisations rather that innovative design processes needed to improve human licing conditions was be a good idea (though probably already done somewhere on the internet...).

Note that nothing prohibits open designers from using proprietary techniques, equipment, etc. It is preferable to avoid the licensing fees and negotiation hassles but if the design needs a proprietary gizmo and it is uneconomic to design, test and manufacture an open alternative then 100% free/open must wait for another design.

Open Design and Software/Hardware Infrastructures

It would be interesting to link in other wiki articles that relate to how it is that Open Design builds upon concepts within Distributed Computing (for access to significant computing resources, for example) and other distributed software development methods (Sourceforge and Savannah were also mentioned).

Mentions of any Open Source 'GRID' computing networks that may be in existence would be a good idea in order to allow for untapped computing resources to be used. A list of open source computing softwares that are particularly applicable to design simulation is also a good idea (together with free and online tutorials that explain in a structured way, prefarably with exercises, how certain pieces of software can be used effectively, would be cool).

Open Design and Money for Designers

Ultimately, if Open Design were to ever be considered at all seriously, there would be a need for some (at least menial, if not more substantial) methods of distributing monetary rewards or similar allocations based upon certain design ideas (without just being a replacement for the current patents system, or having problems that plague current systems). The time and effort expended by engineers/designers, etc... should be rewarded in some way whilst at the same time allowing for the Open Design philosophy to be maintained (in any community, there will always be a small number of highly gifted contributors capable of offering innovative design ideas, but the concept of 'common good' would surely not allow for small numbers of individuals to gain 'excessively' large amounts of money or undue influence over the Design community).

It would likely mirror the open source software world in many respects. There is plenty to take seriously in with open source and probably the majority of that work is unpaid - it is not usually a full-time job. The work the open-source programmer does adds to the ecosystem of other projects that exist and are freely available to use. So what goes around, comes around - this person can make use of all this other software which ultimately saves him money, when the alternative is to buy something proprietary.

However there are some organisation that pay open-source programmers to contribute, and the same may become true when open design kicks off properly. Various philanthropists or charities may pay people to work on problems, but copyleft the designs for anyone to make use of.

It may be that a whole alternative 'economy' emerges from this open culture and that although a contributor may not be financially rewarded for his efforts, more and more of his life is able to be conducted using open tools and open products meaning that his outgoings are significantly reduced as a result. Who knows what may eventually emerge from this culture if advanced automation and national infrastructure become an 'open source' affair. These are ideas I am exploring in my website http://www.adciv.org. - CharlesC 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

methods of distributing monetary rewards -- One such method for rewarding people who put a lot of time and effort into developing a design, and yet still publish those plans in such detail that other people can reproduce the design "at cost", is called the Street Performer Protocol. Another one that several groups are currently using is the Threshold pledge. As you said before, another method is for philanthropists to pay the salary of such people. Should we mention all these methods in this article? --75.48.165.135 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not (if these methods really are being used for open-source design). My previous paragraph above was just mentioning what I saw as plausible reward mechanisms, I didn't know if they were being used yet! --CharlesC 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Design in Comparison to pre-existing Design Methods

This is not meant to be an exhasustive list, though it is interesting. It would be a good idea for someone to add to it - perhaps with a view to giving concrete exampls. The use of pretty pictures would not be a bad idea :

Advantages -

If all aspects of the design process can be viewed by anyone willing to expend the time and effort in doing so, it should be possible to significantly reduce the number of design errors made.

There are also certain informational 'economies of scale' that Open Design can gain advantages from that other Design Methods may not/cannot. These include gaining an overview of the 'Design philosophy', say, for example, the design of a computer type for communities in the developing world, where complex interactions between varying technological infrastructures required for the manufacture and design of a particular technology (a computer in this example) can be better comprehended.

It might also be possible to gain an overview of how technologies can be distributed to remote locations of need with a view towards ensuring that they require minimal maintenance and pre-existing infrastructure for sustainability (attaching a solar power module to the above computer, would be something that could be achieved by a single company, for example - but would they have the motivation to practically implement it? Further, the open design philosophy is more capable of allowing differing areas of technology to be integrated in the above way).

Disadvantages -

There is a general tendency for private businesses and corporations to attract highly motivated and talented individuals. Is it possible that the Open Design movement would attract the self-same individuals to the same degree?

There is not deadlines system as the Open Source philosophy is in many senses voluntary. What drives those individuals that make contributions? How can volunteers be made to have both incentives to achieve good results and contributions, and 'punishments' for not meeting certain obligations?

The Need for Pretty Pictures

It is a good idea to have pictures - but, importantly, how it is that those pictures are derived (together with source code and models that are used in order to generate numerical data for those pictures, as well as explanations of design decisions that have been made based upon the interpretation of information and conlusions derived from those pictures). This ties in with general data analysis and how it is that data analysis, in pictorial as well as in more generalised forms, can lead to the making of important design decisions.

A link into Design Philosophy

I have mentioned this at various points here. Though some kind of an analysis of how it is that engineers can understand the importance of design philsophy from a practical point of view. When dealing with individuals who are sufficiently intelligent to be capable of high levels of technical proficiency and are relatively industrious in regards to their working and cognitive abilities (for example, mathematicians and engineers who are capable of performing complex calculations for prolonged time periods). How can design philosphy (when dealing with large and potentially complex design projects) be related to concepts of self-regulation so that design engineers can better understand how some tyoe of 'philosophy of design' interrelates with the generation of creative solutions to complex problems?

Sentence fragment

Under the heading, "Focused organizations", there is a sentence fragment: "Features limited message board type collaboration." Since I'm not familiar with this topic, I haven't a clue as to how to fix it. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 09:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title modification

I think that 'Open source design' might a more descriptive name for this article. 'Open design' sounds a little ambiguous. Does anyone feel strongly either way? --CharlesC 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favour the term Open Source Design. Royshearer (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but Original Research?

This is turning into a great article -- one that deals with subject matter I am particularly interested in. I am concerned about the amount of original research and opinions in this work though -- most of it unreferenced. ThreeE 22:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals getting more power

Perhaps a paragraph can be added about the individual getting more powerful trough crowdsourcing, and internet-related activities (eg harvesting power of botnet, ...). Can be used for environmental purposes, according to John Arquila. Gathering info from protected sites may also be useful for building gyroscopes, and robotic systems according to Shawn Carpenter (latter useful for certain environmental systems). See Cybercrime documentary (http://www.gsnmagazine.com/cms/market-segments/critical-infrastructure/458.html ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.186.75 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Open source hardware

I think they are the same...--Kozuch (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Open design is the process and Open source hardware is one of the products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. However I think this needs to be made more clear in the article...--Kozuch (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Alan. Open Design is the process through which the open source hardware product is created. --User:Mdkoch84 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reside in a different paradigm"??

Should be written in a better simpler way. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIY

As well as the recent, electronics orientated view of this article, its worth noting that more old fashioned things like woodworking, arts and crafts, and DIY were examples of open design and reprap type things, even though that terminolgy was not used in the past. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed ODA/Intellicad

As the first sentence of this article states, "Open design is the development of physical products, machines and systems through use of publicly shared design information." The "semi-open" section consisted of what looked like spam. ODA/Intellicad products are not open in design or source. Krushia (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

someone added ODA again without adding a comment here. so I'm removing them. They are a commercial company selling interoperability software tools with no openness. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update the Rating?

The C-Class and Low-importance ratings on this article were assigned more than 4 years ago, if I am reading the history correctly. There have been hundreds of edits since then. The page looks pretty good to me... but I'm not a pro editor and any page can use improvement.

If the WikiProject Computing editors could update the assessment, I would be glad to work on improving the page. One of the members of the E-Nable group that I just added to the list of orgs is also the director of Science Online, which seems to be a group of people wildly enthusiastic about things like Open Design.

Also, I would archive some of this talk page. It is confusing to read 5+ year old criticisms that have been fixed, but not noted as fixed. Marlacparker (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Open design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]