For those of you interested in the chumby One, the schematics and gerbers are now posted on chumby’s wiki in the hardware section. Hopefully, over time some of the hacks we’ve done will be documented on the wiki. Or, you could contribute and document your hacks there as well…it is a public wiki after all!
I think a short reminder is due about the hardware license attached to the schematics and gerbers. The topic of Open Source licensing is certainly one that has spawned many Holy Wars, with True Believers on all sides. Many accuse me of not being a “true” open source person, an opinion for which they are entitled to. I have always had my own opinion about open source that in some places run contrary to the popular opinion; for example, I find the GPL to be a bit burdensome at times, and the weight that comes with GPL code some times prevents me from using it or linking against it; instead, I have to find code that uses a “lighter”, less-restrictive license. However, I do firmly believe that both the company and the community are well served by sharing schematics for devices, and quite often these get out there regardless of the intentions of the maker. Oh and — in case it wasn’t clear, this blog is my personal, independent expression, so my opinions and views don’t necessarily reflect those of chumby Industries.
Long and interesting discussion on the open nature of the Chumby…
Adafruit publishes a wide range of writing and video content, including interviews and reporting on the maker market and the wider technology world. Our standards page is intended as a guide to best practices that Adafruit uses, as well as an outline of the ethical standards Adafruit aspires to. While Adafruit is not an independent journalistic institution, Adafruit strives to be a fair, informative, and positive voice within the community – check it out here: adafruit.com/editorialstandards
Stop breadboarding and soldering – start making immediately! Adafruit’s Circuit Playground is jam-packed with LEDs, sensors, buttons, alligator clip pads and more. Build projects with Circuit Playground in a few minutes with the drag-and-drop MakeCode programming site, learn computer science using the CS Discoveries class on code.org, jump into CircuitPython to learn Python and hardware together, TinyGO, or even use the Arduino IDE. Circuit Playground Express is the newest and best Circuit Playground board, with support for CircuitPython, MakeCode, and Arduino. It has a powerful processor, 10 NeoPixels, mini speaker, InfraRed receive and transmit, two buttons, a switch, 14 alligator clip pads, and lots of sensors: capacitive touch, IR proximity, temperature, light, motion and sound. A whole wide world of electronics and coding is waiting for you, and it fits in the palm of your hand.
Have an amazing project to share? The Electronics Show and Tell is every Wednesday at 7pm ET! To join, head over to YouTube and check out the show’s live chat – we’ll post the link there.
Agreed. I personally avoid GPL due to its viral nature. There are lots of libraries and software with real free licenses should as MIT and BSD. I rather contribute back to projects with MIT and BSD licenses because that gives me freedom to use my contributed code wherever I want. If the license was GPL I could use my code only in other GPL projects.
I’m no expert on software licenses, but I’m pretty sure that’s not true. As the copyright holder, you may license that code in any way you wish, and do anything you want with it. Code can be dual licensed BSD and GPL, so that it can be used in GPL projects, but also may be modified and distributed according to the BSD license. Changes made to it by others as part of a GPL’d project must remain GPL’d, and if you then improve on their changes, you’re bound by the GPL. However, you are still the copyright owner of the original work and may do anything with it you like. The license is how _you_ allow others to change and distribute it, and does not change the fact that it belongs to you.
Agreed. I personally avoid GPL due to its viral nature. There are lots of libraries and software with real free licenses should as MIT and BSD. I rather contribute back to projects with MIT and BSD licenses because that gives me freedom to use my contributed code wherever I want. If the license was GPL I could use my code only in other GPL projects.
I’m no expert on software licenses, but I’m pretty sure that’s not true. As the copyright holder, you may license that code in any way you wish, and do anything you want with it. Code can be dual licensed BSD and GPL, so that it can be used in GPL projects, but also may be modified and distributed according to the BSD license. Changes made to it by others as part of a GPL’d project must remain GPL’d, and if you then improve on their changes, you’re bound by the GPL. However, you are still the copyright owner of the original work and may do anything with it you like. The license is how _you_ allow others to change and distribute it, and does not change the fact that it belongs to you.
Please correct me if I’m mistaken.