Open Technical Infrastructures

From FLOK Society (EN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Sustainability and sovereignty over
technological infrastructure
Jenny TORRES O.
National Institute of Higher Education - IAEN
December, 2013


"... the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold that information - if we keep it secret - then we are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided, I shouldn’t do." - Richard Stallman


Contents

I. Introductory Phase

Scope

The scope of this research is to achieve rules and norms of openness and the commons orientation of digital infrastructures; important aspects of digital usage such as privacy, security; individual and collective rights of expression through digital media.

Key words

open technical infrastructures; privacy; security; data ownership; digital rights

Tasks

  • Insuring privacy protection
  • Limiting the dependence on centralized infrastructures under foreign control; supporting the construction of more autonomous distributed networks
  • Limits on the surveillance of citizens through digital rights
  • Instituting a right of personal data ownership
  • Protecting network neutrality

Ecuadorian National Plan (2013-2017) policies associated with the research

“Ecuador has the historic opportunity to exercise its economic, industrial and scientific governance of strategic sectors with sovereignty. This will generate wealth and raise our people’s overall standard of living”[1]


The Ecuadorian National plan policies associated with the “Open Technical Infrastructures” stream corresponds to:

Objective 11: To ensure the sovereignty and efficiency of strategic sectors for industrial and technological transformation. 11.3 To democratize public telecommunications service provision and information and communication technologies (ICTs), including radio and television broadcasting and the radio electric spectrum, enhancing universal usage and access.


Diagnosis[2]

  • Internet use has been quadrupled comparing with 2006, allowing a more democratic access to information.
  • Internet access at home, by the population in quintiles 1 and 2 (the poorest sectors) has increased from 1% and 4% to 11% and 16%, respectively, being educational institutions and public access centers the most important access points for this population, with 49% and 38%, respectively.
  • Optical fiber connectivity has increased from 1251 km in 11 provinces, in 2006, to 8689 km in 24 provinces, in 2012. Nevertheless, it is still evident the digital divide comparing urban and rural zones, due to Internet services are concentrated in big populations such as Pichincha, Guayas and Azuay.
  • Ecuador has a density of broadband connections of 41.9% which is below:

- 8% of the Latin American average

- 7% of the Asia Pacific countries

- 19% of Europe

  • The accessibility by province is also concentrated in Pichincha and Guayas, and in provincial capitals and county seats in the different provinces, which creates problems of exclusion and digital divide.
  • In South America, in 2012, Ecuador is ranked 8 in the 12 countries considered for the analysis of the level of electronic government development. And 102 in the 193 countries analyzed.
  • Ecuador e-government index is 0.487, which means that the country is below the world average (0.497) and South America (0,551).
  • I+D+i Investment (Research+Development+innovation) in 2007 was 0.23% from the GDP and in 2007 0.44%. Nevertheless this investment is lower than the regional average (0.66%).

Policies and strategic guidelines[3]

a. Ensure the quality, accessibility, continuity and equitable rates for services, especially for rural areas, most disadvantaged social groups and actors of the popular and solidarity economy.

b. Strengthen citizenship skills for using ICTs, giving priority to SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) and the actors of the popular and solidarity economy.

c. Promote the quality, safety and coverage in the provision of public services, through the use of telecommunications and ICTs, especially to promote access to financial services, technical assistance for production, education and health.

d. Facilitate the competition between telecommunications operators to establish a more uniform distribution of the market and avoid monopolies and oligopolies.

e. Implement performance requirements for strengthen the transformation of the productive matrix in bands concession, frequencies and services contracts.

f. Use the regulatory mechanisms needed to avoid the phenomenon of captive market in dominant operators activities.

g. Establish mechanisms for technology transfer in telecommunications regulations to allow local development of new applications and services.

h. Promote the allocation and reallocation of frequencies to community groups, local governments and others of national interests, to democratize the use of radio spectrum.

i. Promote transactional and participatory e government the citizenship on-line access to data, information, transactions and other services.

j. Strengthen the regulation of postal services to ensure public service quality.

k. Strengthen multi-year procurement, import substitution, technological transfer and innovation, commercial management and management of an efficient and competitive distribution networks in the management of public telecommunications company.

l. Strengthen integral security using ICTs.

m. Promote the use of ICTs in the efficient mobility of people and goods, and in the integral management electronic waste for environmental conservation and energy savings.

n. Develop networks and regional telecommunications services to ensure sovereignty and security in information management.

Goals[4]

  1. Achieve a digitizing rate of 41.7 (digitizing rate in 2011: 32.8)
  2. Achieve an e government rate of 0.55 (e government rate in 2012: 0,49)
  3. Decrease digital illiteracy to 17.9% (digital illiteracy from 15 to 49 years old in 2012: 21.4)
  4. Increase the percentage of people using ICTs to 50.0% (people older than 5 in 2012: 41.4)

Approach Analysis

The Ecuadorian government guides the change of its productive matrix to a common and open knowledge management. Nowadays, knowledge has evolved from being a resource to be a “primary” resource focused on a fundamental change of the structure of society. Unlike other assets that are rare and exclusive, as raw materials, soil or oil, knowledge is created once and can benefit everyone forever. This new "knowledge society", will lead the economic and social development of Ecuador towards a sustainable society, which means a society that guarantees the life of its citizens and ecosystems through generations.

The diagnosis shows a more democratic access to information in the last years, as well as the improvement of the services. The main goal of Objective 11 of the Good Living Plan is focused on expanding the use of ICTs in Ecuador in order to eliminate the digital divide. Based on Open Technical Infrastructure stream, the research will be focused on policies for innovation and production of open architectures, since they play a key role for achieving sustainability. License sharing for software and hardware designs ensure that any innovation benefits all humanity and all members of a particular open ecosystem. In the case of production, open design communities not only think differently about the product or service they are working on, but also think differently about the production process. Collaboration and community are keywords that should help this implementation to increase the common and open knowledge. Innovation is a catalyst of progress towards a knowledge society while information technology is its backbone. That is why the Ecuadorian government has invested over the past six years in the technology and telecommunication sector, looking to restructure computer systems and to take advantage of information and communications technology in order to create knowledge. The sum of an open source approach and a sustainable society offers us the best of both worlds for the development of Ecuador.


Key experts and practitioners in the various domains

Outside Ecuador

  • Gordon Cook

The COOK Report on Internet Protocol

  • Joshua Pearce

Associate Professor, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering. Michigan Technological University

  • Carolina Botero

Creative Commons Colombia

  • Massimo Menichinelli
  • Maira Sutton

Global Policy Analyst-EFF

  • Katitza Rodriguez

International Rights Director-EFF


Inside Ecuador

  • Carlos Correa Loyola

Creative Commons

  • Quiliro Ordóñez

Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador-ASLE

  • Rubén Zavala

InfoDesarrollo

  • Rafael Bonifaz
  • Milton Cerda

II. Global Reseach Phase

Introduction

The terms “free” and “open source” are words originally applied to software projects. Open-source software has become an important part of the software development process, where the software is distributed and licensed in a way that allows users to modify, improve, compile and further distribute its source code[5]. A similar open-source culture movement, inspired by many of the same concerns, has taken shape among people involved in electronic hardware design efforts on a collaborative basis: the idea of Open Source Hardware (OSHW)[6].

Innovation and production are considered as basis tools for achieving sustainability, while collaboration and community are keywords that should help this implementation to increase common and open knowledge. Open source innovation benefits everyone. Sharing skills and technology openly is an effective way to move towards an open source economy, an economy that works for everyone and restore the ecosystem of the earth.

Nowadays, it is being imperative to create and promote a sustainable society based on open source technologies. Since all fields and all industries tend to open source development (agriculture, construction, electronics, infrastructure biotechnology, among others), and based on the fact that over the last six years the Ecuadorian government had invested in the technology and telecommunication sector, it is necessary to facilitate more effective, collaborative and communitary efforts, to create sustainable economic opportunities in the country creating knowledge.

Cities need to be updated from the organization point of view, orienting them to be auto-sustainable. Neighborhoods will be production clusters, with a high load of humanism and local needs perspective, supported by a high tech age to bring digital fabrication to common people, and with the necessary commodities and platforms for people to solve their own needs. Innovation is a catalyst of progress towards a knowledge society while information technology communications (ICT) are the backbone.

Technological sustainability

Sustainability is the capacity to persist. Moving towards sustainability is a social challenge that involves international and national policies, as well as the change of individual lifestyles. The development of technology, hand in hand with the adjustment of individual lifestyles, for instance recycling or energy saving, would increase the conservation of natural resources, thus achieving a technological sustainability.

Today’s technological advancements need more and more of rare earth elements (REEs). While more abundant than many other minerals, they are not concentrated enough to be, economically, easy to exploit. The United States was a self-reliant in domestically produced REEs. However, in the last 15 years it has become 100% dependent on imports, primarily from China, due to lower cost operations[7],[8]. Among the different applications of REEs we have:

  • Mobile devices: the key to mobility is reducing the size and weight of mobile devices while maintaining the highest level of functionality and computing performance. Advanced technology designers, engineers, and manufacturers could not achieve these goals without the use of rare elements.
  • Energy technologies: REEs play a key role in the expected growth of many emerging energy technologies. The next generation of wind and hydro power turbines, batteries, motors to power electric vehicles, motors for electric power steering, magnetic refrigeration, energy-efficient appliance motors and fuel cells are examples of applications that are expected to contribute significantly to the quest for energy independence.
  • Military officials: have stressed how rare earth elements form a currently irreplaceable part of devices such as lasers, radar, missile-guidance systems, satellites and aircraft electronics. Many military systems also rely upon commercial computer hard drives that use rare earth magnets.
  • Health and medical applications: including drug treatments, diagnostic techniques and equipment. They act as catalysts in biomedical and chemical research, being used in the trace of agents during imaging, and in laser and radio-isotopic treatment for cancer.

World Resources

By 2010, world demand for REEs was estimated at 136,100 tons with global production around 133,600 tons annually. Nevertheless, by 2015 global demand for REEs may reach 210,000 tons per year[9]. In the short term, Australia is expected to become operational to help the raw materials gap, and other new mining projects could easily take 10 years in order to reach production. Scientists had previously known that rare earth elements are also found in some kinds of deep-sea mud. High concentrations of them are in the eastern South Pacific, west of Peru and Ecuador, and the central North Pacific, near Hawaii.

While the raw materials exist in the ground in amounts that could meet many decades of increased demand, the challenge comes in scaling up supply at a rate that matches expected increases in demand[10]. As is not possible to obtain an accurate figure for global rare earth resources, achieving technological sustainability is a challenge where industries must ensure world’s needs for energy, transport, water, healthcare, among others, being aware of the limits of the environment. In order to create a technological model for sustainable development, an appropriate technology, supported by the “open source” definition should be implemented, with special consideration to the environmental, ethical, cultural, social, political, and economical aspects of the community it is intended for[11].


“The bottom line is not that we’re going to run out... but it’s an issue on which we need focus, to build the supply base and to improve those technologies which use and reuse these materials. It needs to be a focus of research and development” - Randolph E. Kirchain - Principal Research Scientist at MIT.


Building a Sustainable Hardware

The main reason for basing the sustainable development in OSH is the motivation behind the research, implying innovation and production[12]. Innovation cannot be privatized and taken away from the benefit of collective humanity. Shared licenses for hardware designs insure that any innovation produced benefits the whole humanity and all the members of the open ecosystem in particular. In the case of production, open design communities do not only think differently about the product or service they are working on, but they also think differently about the production process. Localized production holds the promise of many savings in transportation costs, while losing none of the benefits of scale, as they can count on open and global innovation and research communities.


Problem Statement


Nowadays, there are a lot of problems concerning the adaptation of a sustainable hardware. One of the main problem is the high production costs commonly associated with the foreign technological dependence. The problem associated with costs, implies that not everyone can have access to the right technology, and thus, the consumer of the product must take the product offering the market, which usually does not meet the specific requirements of a particular consumer. Concerning the foreign technological dependence, in hardware proprietary there is a lot of redundant design (reinventing the wheel). Instead of using the previous knowledge and innovating in new areas of research and production, there is a waste of time, avoiding researchers to advance more substantially.


Finally, hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals use digital rights (Digital Rights Management - DRM) in order to control the use of digital content and devices. This action retains the knowledge (privatization of knowledge) in large manufacturing industries, thus creating economic inefficiencies. With the reduction of costs for computing and networking, the enhancement of innovation is implicit as well as the freedom to chose.


Challenges


For a sustainable design, some key areas should be considered:


  • Renewable energy research and production: there are a lot of resources available for achieving sustainable energy, for instance: from solar, wind and hydro. The main focus for providing a reliable energy should be rural areas where the lack access to electricity is evident. Self-managed energy systems for rural areas and data-centers will require the help of local institutions to support the adoption and diffusion of the new technology.
  • Data connectivity: it would implies more affordable or higher-bandwidth services, as well as free networks.
  • Recycling: thousands of computers are discarded every day as people upgrade to newer models. The main goal of recycling is to provide free computer hardware and education to the community through the use of open source software.
  • Sovereignty: the main goal of adopting open hardware is the sovereignty over it. Through the use of open hardware, there would not be more systems controlled by external entities. This will breaks the technological dependence and gets the freedom that free hardware provides.

OSH Projects and Initiatives

Its historical antecedents include the open source and free software movements, from which it derived its principles. Despite the deep roots of these legacies, OSHW only became known in the last decade. This was mostly due to the rise of the Internet, which made sharing hardware designs possible, the commercial success of open source software, which gave it public visibility, and the decrease in cost of production tools, which made it feasible[13]. There is a number of organizations and initiatives that have helped to establish OSHW, for instance OHANDA[14], OSHW[15], OSHWA[16], among others. Within these OSH communities, there are already information published regarding designs and the commercialization of parts in order to build an OSH prototype.


Open-source hardware can contribute to bridging the technological, educational and cultural gaps between developing and developed countries. Although, it is still a phenomenon in terms of market share[17], there are about 84 research groups in 17 countries[18], which aim to contribute to the open source “ideal”, and about 71 countries commercializing it, among them, Ecuador[19]. Mathilde M., member of Makingsociety.com, presented during the Open Hardware Summit 2013 a report entitled “The state of open hardware entrepreneurship in 2013”[20]. From 100 companies surveyed, EEUU leads the industry of OSHW startups with 68 enterprises, then Europe with 19 and finally, Asia with only 7. In 2007, only 5 enterprises were funded. Nowadays, there are around 22 composed by engineers (83%), designers (17%), professors (14%) and entrepreneurs (7%). From these, 63% come from the electronic industry, 15% from manufacturing and less than 5% come from transportation, architecture and energy.

The open hardware platforms become the platform where people start to develop their own products. From 4000 professional engineers and over 4000 students and hobbyists surveyed, about 56% of the professional engineers said they were more likely to use open-source hardware while 80% of the students and hobbyists are interested in using it, a shown in the figure below.[21]


Jenny01.png


Despite the interest of reaching a technological sustainability through the implementation of OSH, there is not too much interest of applying it as a government policy. The only country that had considered the acquisition and use of it in public administration is Venezuela. It has being working since the beginning of 2010 with the project Pingüino Ve, which stimulates domestic production technology, by obtaining a comprehensive platform for design and development, in order to facilitate the sustainable manufacturing of electronic devices in the country.

Principles, goals and objectives

The statement of principles and the Definition for OSHW is a high level overview done by freedomdefined.org[22] (Appendix A), which has been endorsed by different persons and organizations. We have referred to version 1.0, nevertheless, there is a new draft concerning the next version.


Statement of Principles


“Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design. The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it. Ideally, open source hardware uses readily-available components and materials, standard processes, open infrastructure, unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to maximize the ability of individuals to make and use hardware. Open source hardware gives people the freedom to control their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open exchange of designs”.


Definition


The definition of OSHW is based on the Open Source definition,[23] for Open Source Software created by Bruce Perens and the Debian developers. Summarizing, the distribution terms of OSHW must comply with the following criteria:


  1. The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files.
  2. The documentation for the hardware must clearly specify what portion of the design, if not all, is being released under the license.
  3. If the licensed design requires software, it must be released under an[1]OSI-approved open source license or to have the sufficient documentation for the interfaces.
  4. The license shall allow modifications and derived works, and to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original work, as well as the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files, the design files themselves, and derivatives thereof.
  5. The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the project documentation; not require a royalty or other fee for such sale; not require any royalty or fee related to the sale of derived works.
  6. The license may require derived documents, and copyright notices associated with devices, to provide attribution to the licensor when distributing design files, manufactured products, and/or derivatives thereof.
  7. The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
  8. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work (including manufactured hardware) in a specific field of endeavor.
  9. The rights granted by the license must apply to all to whom the work is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
  10. The rights granted by the license must not depend on the licensed work being part of a particular product
  11. License Must Not Restrict Other Hardware or Software
  12. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

Licenses


New hardware licenses are often explained as the "hardware equivalent" of a well-known OSS license, such as the GPL, LGPL, or BSD license. Despite the similarities to software licenses, most hardware licenses are fundamentally different, since they rely on patent law than on copyright law. While a copyright license may control the distribution of the source code or design documents, a patent license may control the use and manufacturing of the physical device built from the design documents. The concept of “open-source hardware” or “open hardware” is not yet as well known or widespread as the free software or open-source software concept. Nevertheless, it shares the same principle that anyone should be able to see the source (the design documentation in case of hardware), study it, modify it and share it. Open Hardware licenses govern the use, copying, modification and distribution of hardware design documentation, and the manufacture and distribution of products. Among the new licenses that have been proposed for OSHW we have:


  • The TAPR Open Hardware License[24]: drafted by attorney John Ackermann, reviewed by OSS community leaders Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond, and discussed by hundreds of volunteers in an open community discussion.
  • Balloon Open Hardware License[25]: used by all projects in the Balloon Project
  • Hardware Design Public License: written by Graham Seaman, administrator of Opencollector.org
  • The Solderpad License[26] is a version of the Apache License version 2.0, amended by lawyer Andrew Katz to render it more appropriate for hardware use.
  • CERN Open Hardware License (OHL)[27]: intended for use with the Open Hardware Repository and other projects.

In the case of the last one, if modifications are made and distributed, it must be under the same license conditions. This is the “persistent” nature of the license, which ensures that the whole community will continue benefiting from improvements, in the sense that everyone will in turn be able to make modifications to these improvements.


There are also some other OSHW projects using the existing, free and open-source software licenses such as:


  • Opencores[28]: LGPL or a Modified BSD License
  • FreeCores[29]: GPL
  • Open Hardware Foundation[30] promotes "copyleft" or other permissive licenses
  • Open Graphics Project: MIT license, GPL, and a proprietary license

Distributed workspaces

Among the different physical places to meet and work, proposed by different open source communities, there are business-driven professional services (TechShops, 100KGarages), or through a commons approach (hackerspaces) or a combination of both (coworking franchises, FabLabs). Those places could be classified as temporary meetup facilitation and permanent coworking spaces.[31]


Temporary working spaces

The temporary working spaces and meetups had led to increase coworking possibilities[32]. One of the most popular methodologies between hacker communities and technology oriented youth are the: unconference. In an unconference, attendees create the agenda with the assistance of a skilled facilitator using appropriated process methods that let the assistant to learn, share and take participatory action, making the sessions relevant[33]. For instance, a BarCamp[34] is an international network of unconferences, particular popular in the technologies communities where there are specific purpose-driven work meetups such as hackathons and booksprints. The meetup organizing web platform helps people form local communities to organize that kind of events. Referring open-source hardware, although it is still a phenomenon in terms of market share[35], there are about 84 research groups in 17 countries[36], which aim to contribute to the open source “ideal”, and about 71 countries commercializing it, among them, Ecuador[37].


A hackathon[38] is an event in which computer programmers and others involved in software development, including graphic designers, interface designers and project managers, collaborate intensively on software projects. In a booksprint[39], a group will produce a book in 3-5 days. this group is guided by a facilitator to produce it from zero. The books are high quality content and are made available immediately at the end of the sprint via e-book formats. As the events mentioned before, a workshop is a temporary working space where a group of people get engage in an intensive discussion and activity on a particular subject or project.


Permanent coworking spaces


Coworking is a different type of organizational work that involves the creation of mutualized collaborative workspaces and regroup a network of professionals from different working areas, independent workers, nomad workers, entrepreneurs and freelancers. At the beginning of 2013, more than 1.200 coworking spaces are in operation in Europe[40]. In less than 5 years, the total of coworking spaces has overtook, for instance, the total of incubators and innovation centers operating in Europe. Among this coworking movement we can mention specifically two: hackerspaces and FabLabs.


A hackerspace is a nonprofit organization owned and run by it’s members in a spirit of equality, also referred to as a hacklab, makerspace, or hackspace. In a hackerspace, people with common interests in science, technology, or digital or electronic art can meet, socialize and collaborate[41], sharing tools, equipment and ideas without discrimination even to outsiders. The number of hackerspaces has reached over 660 locales in early 2012, according to one hackerspace directory[42] [43].


A FabLab is a fabrication laboratory with modern computer controlled equipment that aim to develop personal fabricators. It currently includes[44]:

  • A computer-controlled laser cutter, for press-fit assembly of 3D structures from 2D parts
  • A larger (4'x8') numerically-controlled milling machine, for making furniture (and house) sized parts
  • A signcutter, to produce printing masks, flexible circuits, and antennas
  • A precision (micron resolution) milling machine to make three-dimensional molds and surface mount circuit boards
  • Programming tools for low-cost high-speed embedded processors

The FabLab network is expanding in different cities planning to implement more than one FabLab, in order to see their local impact and their interactions. Among the successful implementations of FabLabs we have[45]:


  • Barcelona FabCity project, which consists of expanding the number of the FabLabs within the city of Barcelona, enabling each area of the city to be self-sustainable in the production and manufacturing[46]. Nowadays, Barcelona has two FabLabs, one is in the east of the city and another in the old town. Nevertheless, they plan to implement another one in the disadvantaged neighborhood of Ciutat Meridiana and a Green FabLab in the northern outskirts of Barcelona, over the mountains around the city, which will be centered around[2]sustainable digital fabrication technologies for the green environment. It’s main objective is to show that this model can transform production methods, as well as social bonds.
  • FabLab Manchester plans to open a network of 30 Labs across the UK over the next eight years, and some of them could be in the same city. However, this project seems not to be part of any public policy, as the FabLab Manchester is owned and run by The Manufacturing Institute, a charity funded by manufacturers and universities that works with companies to help improve skills and productivity.
  • FabLab@School, was the first FabLab opened by Stanford University in Moscow. Nowadays, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development is said to be financing a network of more than 20 labs in Moscow and its surroundings, with more than 100 others expected across Russia.

Open source Hardware in the community

Nowadays there is a lot of innovation happening in the maker community, which implies the democratization of hardware.


Successful Implementations

  • Arduino

Among the most representative OSHW implementations there is Arduino,[47] an open-source physical computing platform based on a simple microcontroller board, and a development environment for writing software for the board. It’s intended for artists, designers, hobbyists, and anyone interested in creating interactive objects or environments.[48] This microcontroller, based on a simple I/O board, can run a number of associated instruments such as, Arduino Geiger (radiation detector) pHduino (pH meter) Xoscillo (oscilloscope) and OpenPCR (DNA analysis). Essentially the board is composed of:

  1. a series of digital and analog ports for inputs (inputs can come from a variety of switches or sensors like motion, light, proximity sensors, etc.)
  2. a series of output ports connected with whatever actuator is used (motor, lights, computerized devices)
  3. a central processor (a microcontroller chip) with a flash memory where the user writes and flashes specific instructions (via USB) on how to process inputs into outputs.

Arduino can be used to develop interactive objects, taking inputs from a variety of switches or sensors, and controlling a variety of lights, motors, and other physical outputs. Arduino projects can be stand-alone, or can be communicate with software running on a computer (e.g. Flash, Processing, MaxMSP.) The boards can be assembled by hand or purchased preassembled and the open-source IDE can be downloaded for free. The Arduino programming language is an implementation of Wiring, a similar physical computing platform, which is based on the Processing multimedia programming environment[49].


License


The board schematics and design files are released under the ‘‘Attribution ShareAlike 3.0’’ Creative Commons (2010) license[50], which means that:


- Anyone can produce copies, redesign it, or even sell boards that copy the design, being unnecessary to pay a fee to the Arduino team or even ask their permission.

- There is an “attribution” part of the license which means that anyone who republish the reference design, has to credit the original Arduino group.

- If someone tweaks or changes the board, the new design must use the same or a similar Creative Commons license to ensure that new versions of the board’s schematic will be equally without fees and open to future modification and redesign.

- The language used to program the microcontroller (Processing) is a FOSS language re adapted by the Arduino team to deal with microcontroller-enabled tangible computing


  • 3D Printing

Arduino's most important application is the 3D printer[51]. Several projects and companies are making efforts to develop affordable 3D printers for home desktop use. The two leading consumer-level 3D printer platforms were originated at university research labs. Bath University in England manufactured the RepRap 3D printer while Cornell University in the United States did the Fab@Home. The machine blueprints are freely available to anyone who wants to build their own machine, or to improve upon the existing designs. They also permit commercial companies to develop and sell their own versions based off of the designs of the original university machines.[52] RepRap (Replicating Rapid-prototyper) is one of the longest running projects in the desktop category. It can make plastic, ceramic, or metal parts, and as it is made from plastic parts, it is able to make copies of itself. Scientists with access to RepRap have found many examples where it is less expensive to design and print research tools rather than buying them.


The industries that most commonly request 3D manufacturing services are consumer products/electronics, cars, the medical profession and companies that make industrial and business machines. The 3D printed objects most commonly requested by these industries are functional models, machine parts, visual aids and patterns for prototype tooling.[53]


The Most Interesting Experiments

Based in 3D printing, many other initiatives were created.


  • 3D printing in learning

In Greece, Ioannina, open source 3D printing was considered as a means of learning in an educational experiment in two high schools[54]. This research project attempts to examine to what extent the technological capabilities of open source 3D printing could serve as a means of learning and communication. In this three-month project, 33 students were tasked to design and produce creative artifacts, in a collaboratively way, with the aid of an open source 3D printer and a 3D design platform; most of these artifacts carry messages in the Braille language. Among the different challenges faced by the project, there are:


  • Training the teachers. It had became imperative to familiarize the teachers with the 3D printer and extra caution in the explanation of key concepts and principles, so that all students could proceed without falling behind. Also, technical issues demand further familiarization of the teachers with the hardware and their keeping up with advances in technology. These advances will eventually allow for cheaper, faster and more accurate 3D printers to find their way into schools.
  • Differences at the level of technological literacy among students. Despite the fact that most possess basic skills in ICT, some are more “engaged” than others, creating an uneven field in the classroom. To tackle such a challenge the teacher needs to distribute his focus accordingly so that all students achieve the same level of understanding and knowledge gained. This was further evident in our case study, since the equipment used exceeds that of standard ICT classes.
  • Artifact diversity. Allowing the students to create an artifact with very few restrictions, resulted in a wide variety of objects that made it challenging to provide proper consultation on the various obstacles that occasionally appeared. When given proper stimulation and the necessary tools, students can choose what to learn themselves through exploration, sharing their results with others while they acquire knowledge instead of dry information out of textbooks.
  • Costs. The cost of 3D printers currently limits the possibility of acquiring several units for the students. Even in the case of using open source 3D printer, whose cost is significantly lower than the proprietary ones, the schools found it difficult to apprehend one.

The next goal, which defined this project’s context, is to send the products to blind children inaugurating a novel way of communication and collaboration amongst blind and non-blind students.


  • 3D printing in Agriculture

An initiative with more positive impact in community is the sustainable farming community (EEUU) where Marcin Jakubowski founded the Open Source Ecology (OSE). In the project, a network of farmers, engineers and supporters, have as main goal the manufacturing of the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS). This GVCS consist on developing and publishing a complete set of machines (50) needed to build a small community cheaply and efficiently[55]. Compared with the market price, it has reduced the cost eight times and has increased the durability of its products five times on average as shown in the following figure[56].


Jenny02.png


At present, the compressed-earth block press machine is finished, which can make bricks of dirt and clay for constructing houses and other buildings. The Factor e Farm is the main headquarters in rural Missouri, where the machines are prototyped and tested. The farm serves as a prototype, and at the same time the residents grow their own food, collect rainwater, and produce all their electricity by solar panels. Another goal of the foundation is to teach people to build, use and maintain this open source machinery. With the same focus, Britta Riley developed a system of urban farms (EEUU) using open-source designs. The system helps city-dwellers to grow their own food. It lets plants use natural light, the climate control of the living space, and organic liquid soil.


  • 3D printing telephone

Motorola mobility, a Google company, has unveiled plans for its most ambitious project, the Project Ara[57]. Led by Motorola’s Advanced Technology and Projects group, Project Ara is developing a free, open hardware platform for creating highly modular smartphones. 3D printing promotes a level of sustainability, functionality, and mass personalization combining two exponential technologies.


  • Wikispeed

The next initiative is the open source modular car with high energy efficiency (EEUU) project called Wikispeed[58]. Wikispeed is a 100 Mile per Gallon (MPG) car using processes borrowed from the software world; Agile, Lean, Scrum and Extreme Programing. It was founded by Joe Justice and his team is concentrated in Seattle, Washington. This modular design is a combination of 8 parts that can be dismantled and assembled quickly, allowing to work on specific parts without impacting the rest of the work. The blueprints of the car, as well as the methodology are shared freely with the community. Like Arduino, the only thing that is not open source is the brand, in order to ensure quality control.

Manufacturing models

The most obvious monetization strategy for OSHW is that of manufacturing[59]. The natural model for open-source hardware would seem to be distributed manufacturing, which involve a number of smaller groups independently producing the same design for local distribution. through this distributed manufacturing, the product would be available in many places, but avoid the cost increases associated with a separate manufacture and distributor[60].


The centralized manufacturing model is a simplified form of the process followed by most corporations. Here a manufacturer produces the product and sells it to multiple distributor. Each distributor marks-up the product and resells it to consumers. This makes the product available in many places, but increases the cost to the consumer, as the manufacturer and distributor both accept a deduction. This is the model followed by Arduino.


Many other open-source hardware manufacturers use a model similar form an artisan, which means to produce and distribute products themselves. This model reduce the costs since there's only one party profiting from a product. Nevertheless, it can limit the product's availability to those places easily reached by the producer.


Free Networks

Wireless Community Networks (WCN) are public wireless access schemes, result of collective efforts of individual volunteers based on infrastructure sharing, granting an open and free access to each of them. Most of these initiatives are promoted by non-profit citizen communities of technology enthusiasts who share a common view, often based on “hacker ethics” and a “free software” ideology.


WCNs are driven by community, commercial or municipal initiatives[61]. The major focus is on wireless communities that are the result of collective efforts of individual volunteers and function on a not-for-profit basis. Sometimes community members operate public hotspots or even offering Internet access through community-owned Internet gateways, which means that an individual WLAN owner may open his private hotspot for public access without anticipating monetary compensation. Following the community models, commercial players have entered the scene, offering mediation services for the development of wireless communities. Finally, municipalities also set up access points in public spaces, offering inexpensive Internet access to citizens. They may get into agreements with private companies, permitting them to deploy their wireless solutions, requiring authentication with the operator of the network, as well as a fee for the service. This model has been adopted by the municipality of Philadelphia, as well as the City of London, which has set up a deal with The Cloud , a European Wi-Fi hotspot aggregator.


Considering their architecture, there are two design alternatives for WCNs:


  • wireless mesh architectures, which aim at providing autonomous wireless interconnection among their users. This architecture build a wireless backhaul using Wi-Fi technologies, with nodes having multiple interfaces and potentially directional point-to-point links with one another. Among the different community-wide services, there are VoIP, online games, FTP, and Web access.
  • hotspot-based community networks typically target mobile users who use wireless hotspots to get access to the Internet. These hotspots are Wi-Fi access points usually attached to fixed broadband lines. Sometimes, they are built relying on the private contributions of individual WLAN owners, who share their fixed broadband lines over Wi-Fi. Municipality-initiated WCNs usually have this structure.

In wireless commons model, each user contributes with resources, usually fixed broadband Internet service and/or access points, and adheres to a set of rules or charter governing the infrastructure sharing[62]. As WCNs provide no customer care, no service level agreements, and do not plan network deployment, they can not be considered as Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Nevertheless, in some cases CWNs do play a critical role, for example by complementing the coverage of commercial ISPs in rural “grey zones” where commercial broadband access is only partial.


Many of the WCNs have made an impact on society and have established relations with other organizations as universities, cultural associations and municipalities. When such WCNs are integrated in municipalities, local government usually supports and uses them. The following section will describe some of these implementations.


Successful Implementations

Among the most successful implementation of WCNs we have:


  • Guifi.net

The Guifi network[63] is a telecommunications network, open, free and neutral built through a peer to peer agreement where everyone can join the network by providing his connection, extending the network and gaining connectivity to all. This CWN was originated in Osona[64], a rural area in the autonomous region of Catalonia, Spain. Despite Guifi started as a citizen initiative, it immediately got support from local municipalities in Osona, which financed nodes for the mesh network to provide broadband in areas where there was no commercial ISP coverage. Guifi uses unlicensed spectrum for its communications links, and its users create network nodes on a volunteer basis from inexpensive Wi-Fi equipment. Guifi’s self-organizing community is governed by a Wireless Commons charter that views unlicensed spectrum as a public asset, which means that Guifi satisfies the definition of an open network with free access and a self regulating community with a well defined charter.


The first Guifi radio links were established in 2004 between houses in the Catalan countryside. The first one thousand running devices were reached during the summer of 2006, at which time growth had already become exponential. In November 2009, the Guifi network consists of over 9,000 live nodes and almost another 4,000 projected. Nowadays, the network serves around 20,000 nodes. Guifi’s usage statistics show that Guifi users make significantly more intensive use of the Internet than users with commercial fixed broadband access (mostly ADSL). In the last three months Guifi has made Internet usage grow to 74,6% in the Osona region. This makes this rural Catalan region now rank sixth in the Eurostat ranking of Internet use.


Guifi community established a set of principles describing the terms and conditions to expand and use the network. These are formulated as the Wireless Commons License which takes its inspiration from the Creative Commons License used in the Linux communities. The Guifi Wireless Commons License establishes the Guifi network as being constructed from collaborative individual contributions, and as having no proprietor. The definition of a Wireless Commons license as the basis for joining the community was one of the decisions that proved crucial for the openness and transparency of the Guifi network. In order to join the network, a user engage in a peer to peer commitment where every node extends the network by receiving connectivity from one or more peers and in turn providing connectivity to others.


The Most Interesting Experiments

Among the most interesting experiments of WCNs in the world[65] we have:


  • Athens Wireless Metropolitan Network (AWMN)[66] is one of the largest community mesh networks in the world. Currently it has more than 9000 registered nodes, with more than 2400 of them being active.
  • SeattleWireless[67], has been at the forefront of the WCN movement since the early 2000s.
  • NYCwireless[68] and the CUWiN Foundation[69] advocate the use of open wireless technologies developing free wireless access solutions for undeserved communities. They also develop software for community wireless projects and are operated by nonprofit organizations.
  • Wireless Leiden[70] is a similar effort in the Netherlands. Its aims to provide a free citywide all-wireless network in the city of Leiden and offer free broadband Internet access to nearby villages, where no fast Internet alternatives exist.
  • Freifunk mesh networks[71] have sprung up in various German cities, as well as in cities in Austria and Switzerland. In Berlin, Freifunk counted 316 concurrent participating nodes on average, according to a 2007 study.
  • The MIT Roofnet[72] mesh network started as a research project focusing on wireless multi-hop routing and IEEE 802.11 protocol performance, while offering Internet access to nearby residents. It is now less vibrant (approximately 20 active nodes), but its technology is used from other wireless community projects.
  • FON[73], has proposed a private hotspot sharing scheme, where WLAN owners can either share their WLANs for a small monetary compensation or in exchange for similar service when they are away from their own WLAN. FON takes care of user registration and authentication and withholds a fraction of the money paid to the hotspot micro-operator for the provided service. British Telecom has recently partnered with FON so that hundreds of thousands of BT’s subscribers share their home broadband lines over Wi-Fi with other community members.
  • South African wireless community networks were developed in different cities allowing members to talk, send messages, share files and play games independent of the commercial landlines and mobile telephone networks.

Policy frameworks

  • Policies for Open Design

The European Design Leadership Board for the European Design Innovation Initiative (EDII) was established in 2011 by Commission Vice President Antonio Tajani, responsible for Enterprise and Industry[74]. It comprises fifteen members drawn from a representative cross-section of design, industry and academia as well as regional and national agencies promoting design and innovation.


In March 2012, the Design Leadership Board, in the context of European policy-making, brought together end-users and other design stakeholders into a facilitated, one-day, co-design workshop in Brussels. The workshop enabled the introduction of expertise, insight and ideas from end-users into the deliberations. The work done during the co-design workshop has been published in a final report[75] released under a Creative Commons license, with the final recommendations for the future design policies for the European Union. In the final report, the Leadership Board identified 21 policy recommendations, grouped according to six areas for strategic design action that can be summarized as follows:


  1. European Design on the global stage
  2. Design in Europe’s Innovation System
  3. Design in Europe’s Enterprises
  4. Design in Europe’s Public Sector
  5. Design in Europe’s Research System
  6. Design in Europe’s Education

Concerning OSHW, the recommendations linked to the issues of intellectual property, Open Design, digital fabrication and FabLabs are[76]:


  • Work towards zero tolerance of infringement. This requires legislative revision, through the inclusion of a ‘Duty of Care’ for shared responsibilities on IPR protection across the digital value chain. Set up a specific EU Tribunal /Court for European IP cases and promote and increase the training of judges in national courts, in relation to the protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the physical world and online (No. 3).
  • Include design within innovation and business incubators and their networks (No. 7).
  • Create guidelines, codes of practice, legal frameworks and experimental spaces to promote the use of Open Design (No. 8).
  • Increase the use of design/designers in public sector innovation // Through supporting designers’ greater involvement in ‘living labs’ where social innovation and public services are critical challenges (No. 16).
  • Raise the level of design literacy for all the citizens of Europe by fostering a culture of design learning for all at every level of the education system (No. 20).

Open Design seeks to restructure the relationship between the actors involved in a design process using the advantages offered by new approaches to intellectual property protection and the new ways of working enabled by technology.


  • Policies for Digital Fabrication

Most of the policies regarding digital fabrication addresses the phenomena of manufacturing industries leaving countries like USA or UK and moving to China[77].


United Stated


Since in November 2011 the Wentworth Institute of Technology opened its new $3 million manufacturing center in which more than 200 students a year are expected to gain lab experience on 20 manufacturing machines. The center will introduce students to rapid prototyping, computer numerical control (CNC) and computer aided manufacturing, which they will apply to the design and manufacturing of parts in the areas of automotive, biomedical, electronics, machine tool and consumer products


During March 2012, President Obama announced his plan to invest $1 billion to catalyze a national network of up to 15 manufacturing innovation institutes around the country that would serve as regional hubs of manufacturing excellence that will help to make our manufacturers more competitive and encourage investment in the United States. The President called on Congress to act on this proposal and create the National Network of Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI).


Obama’s proposal for a NNMI is part of his comprehensive plan to revitalize American manufacturing, which includes providing tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to invest in America, eliminating of tax breaks for manufacturing firms that ship jobs abroad, investing in community colleges and workforce training, supporting innovation in cross-cutting manufacturing technologies, investing in the 21st century infrastructure our manufacturers need, and leveling the playing field so American workers can compete on the merit of their hard work.


During August 2012, the Obama Administration announced the launch of a new public-private institute for manufacturing innovation in Youngstown, Ohio as part of its ongoing efforts to help revitalize American manufacturing and encourage companies to invest in the United States. This new partnership, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII), was selected through a competitive process, led by the Department of Defense, to award an initial $30 million in federal funding, matched by $40 million from the winning consortium, which includes manufacturing firms, universities, community colleges, and non-profit organizations from the Ohio-Pennsylvania-West Virginia ‘Tech Belt.’


United Kingdom


The British government soon followed the same path of the USA government, by announcing to invest £7m of research and development funding into 3D printing in order to increase the country’s competitiveness and bring back manufacturing to UK.


Grants for collaborative research and development projects in 3D printing, will be awarded through an open competition run by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council.


The Big Innovation Centre (an initiative from The Work Foundation and Lancaster University launched in September 2011) also published a report on the importance of 3D Printing in October 2012: “Three Dimensional Policy: Why Britain needs a policy framework for 3D” by Andrew Sissons and Spencer Thompson. According to the authors there may be big first mover advantages for countries that adopt 3D printing early, and the UK has an opportunity to lead the world in this area.


According to them, as a first steps towards seizing the 3D printing agenda, the government should:


  • Create a 3D printing task force, led by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), able to bring together ideas from business and academia, while coordinating the various levers of government policy;
  • Scope a review of the intellectual property implications of 3D printing, building on the work of the Hargreaves Review;
  • Fund the establishment of more pilot 3D printing workshops, to enable members of the public to experiment with the technology;
  • Develop models for and explore the feasibility of a digital design exchange, analogous to the mooted digital copyright exchange;
  • Provide funding for competitions to develop new materials for 3D printing;
  • Commission research and feasibility studies into possible methods for regulating 3D printing markets, particularly with regard to the production of dangerous items.

October 2012 it was known that, according to a leaked paper seen by Reuters, the European Commission is going to ask countries to invest heavily in new technologies such as 3D printing to revive the European Union’s declining manufacturing sector. Singapore as well will invest $500 million over five years to boost Singapore’s skills in advanced manufacturing, including in the rapidly emerging 3-D printing industry.


  • Policies for FabLabs

The first attempt at drafting policies for FabLabs was in U.S. in 2010. A bill before a congress called National FabLab Network Act, was presented, nevertheless it was unsuccessful, as no policy or law was actually generated. The next attempt at drafting policies was in March 2013, again, in the National FabLab Network Act of 2013 to promote advanced manufacturing in the U.S. and invest in the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators. The bill is being introduced with bipartisan support from 15 original co-sponsors and has as main goal to create a nonprofit entity to establish a National FabLab network throughout the United States. The objective of the network will be to establish at least one FabLab for every 700,000 people[78], in order to provide students the access to tools and skills. Although the legislation does not provide funding to the network, it seeks to provide the project with the recognition needed to grow and establish new centers throughout the country. More information about Policies for FabLabs are described in Annexe B.


  • Policies for Wireless Commons implementations

Guifi community had established a set of principles describing the terms and conditions to expand and use the network as a Wireless Commons License. This License is based on the Creative Commons License used in the Linux communities, promoting:


  • self-regulation among users for abuse control
  • self-regulation among users for sharing and placement of devices
  • states traffic sniffing only for network management purposes

Nevertheless, security is the shared responsibility of all users, who are encouraged to use encryption for all data they consider sensitive. The Wireless Commons License also establishes basic rules for quality of service and security management. It allows for prioritizing interactive traffic over batch traffic, but requires users to be transparent about priorities given to their traffic. The license also puts users in control of the network’s services and content, and considers Internet access only one among many services of the Guifi network. More information about The Wireless Commons License is described in Annexe C.

Conclusions

For sustainable technology, openness is the focus value. Innovation, collaboration and community are key words that must assist this implementation in order to rise a common and open knowledge. The acceleration of knowledge is one of the main goals of achieving a free and sustainable hardware, which means sharing it and educating community. There is an educational value in seeing how a design works, making people more aware and appreciative of how things work, which is good for society. Also, we can improve existing solutions towards an open research to find experts to solve problems that we cannot. The open source products allow designers and manufacturers to benefit from customer’s consultation and testing for free, re-naming the customers as "collaborators". The sum of an open source approach and a sustainable technology gives us the best of both worlds for the country development.


There are different reasons for focusing research in different frameworks and contexts in OSHW. First of all, it is cheap and hi-tech. Since it is open and can be easily studied and modified to serve certain educational purposes. Also, it is a product that celebrates the power of human cooperation. There are 5-10 years before 3D Printing will reach its highest productivity peak, which means there is enough time to do research before we can finally get the outcomes and that it is a good moment to invest energy and financial resources on it. OSHW could bring back manufacturing to the countries that have lost it, which means that it becomes imperative to develop public policies for 3D Printing even if manufacturing jobs are starting to come back.


Wireless Common Networks is a volunteer cooperative association dedicated to education, collaboration, and advocacy for the creation of Free Networks. The main goal of establishing them are to promote free and open networks and encourage people to learn about the benefits that they provide and learn about technologies used to build these networks.


APPENDIX

A. OSHW Definition - Version 1.0
http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

This page hosts the current proposed Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles and Definition v 1.0. The statement of principles is a high-level overview of the ideals of open-source hardware. The definition is an attempt to apply those ideals to a standard by which to evaluate licenses for hardware designs.


Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles 1.0

Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design. The hardware's source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it. Ideally, open source hardware uses readily-available components and materials, standard processes, open infrastructure, unrestricted content, and open-source design tools to maximize the ability of individuals to make and use hardware. Open source hardware gives people the freedom to control their technology while sharing knowledge and encouraging commerce through the open exchange of designs.


Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Definition 1.0

OSHW Draft Definition 1.0 is based on the Open Source Definition for Open Source Software and draft OSHW definition 0.5. The definition is derived from the Open Source Definition, which was created by Bruce Perens and the Debian developers as the Debian Free Software Guidelines.


Introduction


Open Source Hardware (OSHW) is a term for tangible artifacts -- machines, devices, or other physical things -- whose design has been released to the public in such a way that anyone can make, modify, distribute, and use those things. This definition is intended to help provide guidelines for the development and evaluation of licenses for Open Source Hardware.

Hardware is different from software in that physical resources must always be committed for the creation of physical goods. Accordingly, persons or companies producing items ("products") under an OSHW license have an obligation to make it clear that such products are not manufactured, sold, warrantied, or otherwise sanctioned by the original designer and also not to make use of any trademarks owned by the original designer.


The distribution terms of Open Source Hardware must comply with the following criteria:


1. Documentation

The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. Where documentation is not furnished with the physical product, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining this documentation for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The documentation must include design files in the preferred format for making changes, for example the native file format of a CAD program. Deliberately obfuscated design files are not allowed. Intermediate forms analogous to compiled computer code -- such as printer-ready copper artwork from a CAD program -- are not allowed as substitutes. The license may require that the design files are provided in fully-documented, open format(s).


2. Scope

The documentation for the hardware must clearly specify what portion of the design, if not all, is being released under the license.


3. Necessary Software

If the licensed design requires software, embedded or otherwise, to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions, then the license may require that one of the following conditions are met:

a) The interfaces are sufficiently documented such that it could reasonably be considered straightforward to write open source software that allows the device to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions. For example, this may include the use of detailed signal timing diagrams or pseudocode to clearly illustrate the interface in operation.

b) The necessary software is released under an OSI-approved open source license.


4. Derived Works

The license shall allow modifications and derived works, and shall allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original work. The license shall allow for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files, the design files themselves, and derivatives thereof.


5. Free redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the project documentation. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. The license shall not require any royalty or fee related to the sale of derived works.


6. Attribution

The license may require derived documents, and copyright notices associated with devices, to provide attribution to the licensor when distributing design files, manufactured products, and/or derivatives thereof. The license may require that this information be accessible to the end-user using the device normally, but shall not specify a specific format of display. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original design.


7. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.


8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work (including manufactured hardware) in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it must not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.


9. Distribution of License

The rights granted by the license must apply to all to whom the work is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.


10. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights granted by the license must not depend on the licensed work being part of a particular product. If a portion is extracted from a work and used or distributed within the terms of the license, all parties to whom that work is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted for the original work.


11. License Must Not Restrict Other Hardware or Software

The license must not place restrictions on other items that are aggregated with the licensed work but not derivative of it. For example, the license must not insist that all other hardware sold with the licensed item be open source, nor that only open source software be used external to the device.


12. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology, specific part or component, material, or style of interface or use thereof.


Licenses and Hardware


In promoting Open Hardware, it is important to make it clear to designers the extent to which their licenses actually can control their designs. Under U.S. law, and law in many other places, copyright does not apply to electronic designs.Patents do. The result is that an Open Hardware license can in general be used to restrict the plans but not the manufactured devices or even restatements of the same design that are not textual copies of the original. The applicable section of copyright law is 17.102(b), which says:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.


Endorsements


OSHW Draft Definition 1.0 has been endorsed to different persons and/or organization as of 2013/11/15. For more information: http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW


B. Policies for FabLabs
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1289/text


113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1289
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 20, 2013


Mr. Foster (for himself, Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Massie, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Carney, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Loebsack, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Peters of Michigan, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Rush, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Shea-Porter) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL
To provide a Federal charter to the Fab Foundation for the National Fab Lab Network, a national network of local digital fabrication facilities providing community access to advanced manufacturing tools for learning skills, developing inventions, creating businesses, and producing personalized products.


1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the National Fab Lab Network Act of 2013 .


2. Findings

Congress finds the following:


(1) Scientific discoveries and technical innovations are critical to the economic and national security of the United States.

(2) Maintaining the leadership of the United States in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics will require a diverse population with the skills, interest, and access to tools required to advance these fields.

(3) Just as earlier digital revolutions in communications and computation provided individuals with the Internet and personal computers, a digital revolution in fabrication will allow anyone to make almost anything, anywhere.

(4) The Center for Bits and Atoms of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (CBA) has contributed significantly to the advancement of these goals through its work in creating and advancing digital fab labs in the United States and abroad.

(5) CBA’s fab labs provide a model for a new kind of national laboratory that links local facilities for advanced manufacturing to expand access and empower communities.

(6) A coordinated national public-private partnership will be the most effective way to accelerate the provision of this infrastructure for learning skills, developing inventions, creating businesses, and producing personalized products.

3. Establishment of national fab lab network


(a) Federal Charter

The Fab Foundation is hereby granted a Federal charter as the National Fab Lab Network (in this Act referred to as the NFLN). The NFLN shall exist as a nonprofit entity whose purpose is to facilitate the creation of a national network of local fab labs, and to serve as a resource to assist stakeholders with their effective operation.


(b) Membership and organization

Eligibility for membership in the NFLN and the rights and privileges of members are as provided in the constitution and bylaws of the NFLN. Directors, officers, and other staff of the NFLN, and their powers and duties are as provided in the bylaws of the NFLN.


(c) Functions

The functions of the NFLN shall be the following:

(1) To serve as the coordinating body for the creation of a national network of local fab labs in the United States.

(2) To provide a first point of contact for organizations and communities seeking to create fab labs, providing information, assessing suitability, advising on the lab lifecycle, and maintaining descriptions of prospective and operating sites.

(3) To link funders and sites with operational entities that can source and install fab labs, provide training, assist with operations, account for spending, and assess impact.

(4) To perform outreach for individuals and communities on the benefits available through the NFLN.

(5) To facilitate use of the NFLN in synergistic programs, such as workforce training, job creation, research broader impacts, and the production of civic infrastructure.

(6) To offer transparency in the management, governance, and operation of the NFLN.


(d) Purposes

In carrying out its functions, the NFLN’s purposes and goals shall be

(1) to create a national network of connected local fab labs to empower individuals and communities in the United States;

(2) to foster the use of distributed digital fabrication tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math skills, increase invention and innovation, create businesses and jobs, and fulfill needs; and

(3) to seek to establish at least one fab lab per every 700,000 individuals in the United States in the first ten years of its operation, corresponding to availability in all 435 Congressional districts.


(e) Definitions

In this section, the term fab lab shall refer to a facility equipped with an integrated suite of fabrication tools to convert digital designs into functional physical things, and scanning tools to convert physical things into digital designs, as exemplified by CBA’s fab labs. These labs shall be available for a range of individual and collaborative educational, commercial, creative, and social purposes, with the NFLN to provide guidelines for their sustainable operation.


(f) Funding

The NFLN may accept funds from private individuals, corporations, government agencies, or other organizations.


C. Wireless Common License
https://guifi.net/en/WCL_EN


About the Wireless Common License

  1. The Wireless Commons License (WCL) describes the terms and conditions of the free and open networks, so enables individuals, communities, organizations, companies, governments or any type of organization to adopt or support this License
  1. When the network is being built with wireless technologies, this license refers to the use of the unlicensed frequencies.
  2. The license is inspired in the free and open networks principles. In a summary:
  • You are free to use the network for any purpose unless you are affecting to the network availability and/or the freedom of the other users.
  • You are free to know how works the network and its components.
  • You are free to use the network for any type of communication and promote it.
  • By joining to the free and open network, you are helping to extend the network in the same conditions.

About the free and open network


  1. The free and open network is the expression of fundamental principles like freedom, equality of opportunities, togetherness and brotherhood through the right of free communications and obtain the maximum possible benefit of the network features. In case that appear some doubt while applying this license, we have to look at this principles.
  2. The network have to allow access to anybody who wants to, with the only limitation of this license If there are artifacts controlling the access, they should be for network management purposes, and not for exclude others access.
  3. Although the network devices and infrastructures can be linked to multiple types of ownerships or entitlements, the network as a whole does not have any owner or proprietor, regardless of how significant is everyone contribution to the network.
  4. The network participants who have adopted the WCL, extend the network in the same terms and conditions by allowing others data to transit on their own network segments, without manipulating that transit for any other reason that just for network management.
  5. The network participants get engaged only to the terms of this license, any other engagement must be explicitly expressed and accepted.
  6. In order to maximize connectivity and network growth, the network members are encouraged to provide permission to other network participants for installing their devices in their own facilities, although this permission is always discretionary and can be revoked at any time.
  7. The adoption of the WCL can be expressed as an individual or as an organization and implies the acceptance of the WCL terms and conditions. At any time any member can revoke this adoption and therefore rescue their own network devices or equipments. The ownership is never lost, regardless of where are placed.

About the network management and traffic priorities (Quality of Service – QoS)

  1. The network management criteria must be publicized
  2. Whenever possible, the general criteria must be (by order of priorization):
  • Interactive traffic (like instant messaging, VoIP, web browsing, etc.)
  • Massive traffic or batch (big data transfers, email, file copy, etc.)
  1. In case that a network member does not apply the criteria described above in more cases than just provide priority to his own traffic, should publish that criteria
  2. There is no warranty of network availability as a whole. Anyway the best warranty is transparency: If possible, network information and availability will be published to allow the network members to diagnose incidents by themselves. However is allowed to provide service levels of availability in specific network segments, in that case who offer those services must provide detailed information and their terms of conditions.

About the use of the spectrum

  1. The non licensed frequencies are considerer as an universal and public asset, like the air or the riversides public usage of those assets like the described in the WCL must prevail over the private or commercial usage. WCL supporters and adopters ask to regulator authorities and governments to develop spaces for make this happen.
  2. The WCL adopters will do a responsible and reasonable usage of the spectrum and will not exceed the necessary transmission power.

About security

  1. Every network participant is responsible of his own security, avoid intrusion on their systems and crypt their traffic if necessary or if he wants to. The open and free network just provides the support for making that possible.
  2. Although private networks can be connected to the open network and use firewalls to control the access and traffic between those networks. Those private networks are not under the terms and conditions of the WCL, and their owners are responsible of their own security.
  3. The open free network is never responsible of the usage or any damage caused by the network participants.

About liability

  1. The open free network is never liable because of the usage or behavior of their participants.

About contents and services

The WCL describes the terms and conditions to build open free networks, but does not include or affect the contents and services of the network, including Internet. There is already a choice of licenses for the contents and services. However and still related to contents and services, a few general principles apply also to them and they are:

  1. There is a freedom to create contents and services to everybody who wants to.
  2. The open free network is only the support over which the contents can transit, but the network itself have nothing to do with them and is not liable because of them.
  3. The content creators or owners can license them with the license of their choice with no restriction. If not expressed, by default they are considered under the Creative Commons (by-sa). If is about servers that provide some sort of feature to the users, if not specified they are also considered free and offered “as is”, without warranty but expect to fit a purpose and is assumed to be a common self service service.
  4. Network participants agree in not use the network for transmitting inappropriate or illegal contents that might damage the other participants, and avoid offensive, non solicited messages and any non-desirable content.
  5. About Internet Access: There are two possible models:
  • Based on sharing or managing unused bandwidth. In this context, if done without any other transaction, the Internet access is a privilege, not a right or a service. The network is just the vehicle that allows a consolidation of aggregated self services, and therefore, does not apply any regulation about markets or ISP services, and does not require or apply any contract with an Internet service provider.
  • Internet access as a service. With this model, regulations may apply depending in the formula used by who provides the service
  1. The network as a whole can't be claimed for availability of Internet access or any other service. Has to be who offer those services according to 3.4: The WCL adopters have the freedom of subscribing/offer this services

This text of the Wireless Commons License is released under the Creative Commons (by-nc-sa) license.

  1. Non commercial use
  2. Must give credit to this WCL original
  3. Derivative works are welcome if those works are released with the same conditions

III. Ecuadorian Research Phase

First it was the cocoa, then bananas, then oil. For years, Ecuador has become known solely as a primary exporting country. That is exporting raw materials, with little involvement of human talent and a high import of products produced. Open source culture is implemented in software but not yet in hardware. Nowadays there are events that encourage students to the development of OSH projects. For instance, students of the Polytechnic University of Chimborazo have generated an electronic device based on Arduino, called Hermes. Hermes is a system of prevention and control of forest fires. The device is a set of sensors, which capture the values of temperature, humidity, light and rain of an ecosystem. The data collected by the device is sent to the Internet, where an application, that generates statistics, monitors the state of forest area. As this one, other projects were presented,among them a low cost brainwave controlled prosthesis and a robot with sensors that stands up.


Joshua M. Pearce, Associate Professor at the Department of Materials Science & Engineering, and the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at Michigan Technological University, has done a very interesting analysis of Open-Source Hardware for Science in Ecuador where he states:


“Ecuador has an opportunity to radically reduce the cost of experimental research in the sciences while improving scientific tools by implementing five policies to support open-source hardware for science.

Exorbitant prices of primarily imported scientific equipment limit scientific access in both education and research. Historically, the scientific community had no choice – forced to buy proprietary tools to participate in state-of-the-art research (high monetary cost) or develop everything from scratch (high time cost). Now the combination of open-source microcontrollers and 3D printers enables the fabrication of customized, low-cost scientific equipment with far less time investment.[79] For example, open-source colorimeters can be built to do COD measurements for under $50 replacing similar hand-held tools that cost over $2000[80] or single automated devices used in solar energy labs such as a filter wheel can be built in a day for $50 replacing inferior commercial tools that cost $2,500.[81] Even high-end equipment can be built from open-source plans such as an $800 open-source microscope that replaces a $80,000 conventional microscope.[82] This method not only offers the potential to radically reduce the cost of doing science, but also training future scientists.[83] An entire university classroom of physics optics setups can be printed in house for $500 on a $500 open-source 3D printer replacing $15,000 of commercial equipment[84], which would save over $400,000 if scaled only to the basic physics labs in the 29 public universities in Ecuador.

To fully take advantage of this opportunity Ecuador must implement policies that allow knowledge to scale horizontally. This horizontal scaling will be accomplished by federal funding being spent only once for development of scientific equipment and then a return on the investment (ROI) is realized by the digital replication of the devices throughout the country for only the costs of materials. Practically this means research-grade scientific instruments will be much more accessible at every level in the education spectrum and that a greater percentage of Ecuador’s scientists will be able to do research at the internationally-competitive level. Improvements in science lead to improvements in technology, which will enhance every aspect of Ecuador’s economy.”

Following this analysis, he proposes five policies necessaries to accomplish it:

  1. Form a task force to identify the top 100 opportunities to realize strategic national goals and a high ROI on open-source scientific hardware. The countries largest current expenditures on equipment should be found along with the most likely future expenditures. Rank all science based purchases from internationally-sourced suppliers by value so equivalent (or superior) open-source devices can be identified as either existing or needing to be developed for [80].
  2. Federal funding of the development of open-source scientific hardware identified in [79]. This can be accomplished with a combination or traditional grants, contests, or bounties.
  3. Create a national catalog of vetted and validated free and open-source scientific hardware housing the bill of materials, digital designs, instructions for assembly and operation and all software and firmware.
  4. To provide incentives for Ecuador’s entrepreneurs to begin to produce this equipment all levels of government will enact purchasing policy preferences for “made in Ecuador” free and open-source hardware / libre hardware.
  5. To enable distributed manufacturing in Ecuador’s universities a basic “maker space” will be funded at each public university including access to open-source 3D printers, machine shop tools, and laser cutters.

IV. Policy Formulation Phase

After finishing the state-of-the-art concerning OSHW and Free Networks, we propose public policies focused mainly on three areas:


  • Open Design
  • Fabrication Laboratories (FabLabs)
  • Free Networks

Public Policies for Open Design

In reference with the policies established by Professor Pearce and the Recommendations of the European Design Leadership Board for Open Design, the following policies had been proposed:

  1. Raise the level of design literacy for all the citizens by fostering a culture of design learning for all at every level of the education system.
  2. To create guidelines, codes of practice, legal frameworks and experimental spaces to promote the use of Open Design.
  3. Form a task force to identify the top 100 opportunities to realize strategic national goals and a high ROI on open-source scientific hardware. The countries largest current expenditures on equipment should be found along with the most likely future expenditures. Rank all science based purchases from internationally-sourced suppliers by value so equivalent (or superior) open-source devices can be identified as either existing or needing to be developed for [80].
  4. Federal funding of the development of open-source scientific hardware identified in [79]. This can be accomplished with a combination or traditional grants, contests, or bounties.
  5. Create a national catalog of vetted and validated free and open-source scientific hardware housing the bill of materials, digital designs, instructions for assembly and operation and all software and firmware.
  6. To provide incentives for Ecuador’s entrepreneurs to begin to produce this equipment all levels of government will enact purchasing policy preferences for “made in Ecuador” free and open-source hardware / libre hardware.
  7. To enable distributed manufacturing in Ecuador’s universities a basic “maker space” will be funded at each public university including access to open-source 3D printers, machine shop tools, and laser cutters.
  8. To Increase the use of design/designers in public sector, where social innovation and public services are critical challenges, through supporting designers involvement in FabLabs.

Public Policies for FabLabs

Based on the National FabLab Network Act congress and the Collaborative Economy report, the following policies for FabLabs were proposed:

  1. To establish a non-profit entity to facilitate the creation of a national FabLabs network
    1. To offer transparency in the management, governance, and operation of FabLabs.
    2. To provide a first point of contact for organizations and communities seeking to create FabLabs, providing information, assessing suitability, advising on the lab lifecycle, and maintaining descriptions of prospective and operating sites.
    3. To serve as the coordinating body for the creation of different FabLabs in the country.
    4. To establish, as goal, the creation of at least one FabLab per every 700,000 individuals.
  2. To create a national network of connected FabLabs to empower individuals and communities
    1. To provide the respective guidelines to communities for their sustainable operation.
    2. To provide training, assist with operations, account for spending, and assess impact.
    3. To incentive population with different skills and interest, to access the tools required to advance in science, technology and innovation.
    4. To link local facilities for advanced manufacturing to expand access and empower communities.
  3. To promote the use of distributed digital fabrication tools to promote science and technology, in order to increase scientific discoveries and technical innovations, create businesses and jobs, and fulfill communities needs
    1. To facilitate use of FabLabs for training, job creation, research broader impacts, and the production of civic infrastructure for a range of individual and collaborative educational, commercial, creative, and social purposes.
  4. To look for or accept funds from private individuals, corporations, government agencies, or other organizations
    1. To link funders, from private individuals, corporations, government, or other organizations, and sites with operational entities that can source and install FabLabs.


Public Policies for Free Networks

Based on Wireless Commons Networks and the Wireless Commons License (WCL) the following policies describe terms and conditions for free and open networks:

  1. To implement the network focused on free and open networks principles
    1. Any user is free to know about the network components and how it works.
    2. Any user is free to use the network for any purpose unless he/she affects the network availability and/or the freedom of the other users.
    3. Any user is free to use the network for any type of communication.
    4. Any user can access the network.
    5. The network as a whole does not have any owner, regardless of how significant is everyone contribution to the network.
    6. The open free network is not responsible of the usage or any damage caused by the network participants.
  2. To extend the network in the same terms and conditions
    1. To allow any user's data to transit on different network segments, without manipulation of that transit for any other reason than network management.
    2. To provide permission to other network participants for installing their devices in their own facilities, although this permission is always discretionary and can be revoked at any time.
    3. To allow a member to remove their own network devices or equipments any time.
  3. To operate in unlicensed spectrum: 2,4GHz range where most of the user devices run (IEEE802.11b,g) and in the 5GHz range (IEEE802.11a)
    1. The non licensed frequencies are considerer as an universal and public asset.
    2. To facilitate Wi-Fi deployment, since it was straightforward for commercial operators, academic institutions and tech-savvy users to build wireless service architectures without the need for acquiring a license.
    3. Users will do a responsible and reasonable usage of the spectrum and will not exceed the necessary transmission power.
  4. To control the access of the network for network management purposes, and not for exclude others access
    1. Every network user is responsible of his own security, avoid intrusion on their systems and crypt their traffic if necessary or if he wants to.
  5. To provide freedom to create contents and services to everybody who wants to
    1. Users agree in not use the network for transmitting inappropriate or illegal contents that might damage the other users, and avoid offensive, non solicited messages and any non-desirable content.

References

  1. Good Living National Plan. 2013-2017
  2. Good Living National Plan. 2013-2017
  3. Good Living National Plan. 20132017 (spanish version)
  4. Good Living National Plan. 2013-2017
  5. The GNU Operating system. Free software foundation, gnu general public license, version 2. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
  6. John R. Ackermann. Toward open source hardware. University of Dayton Law Review, 34:183, 2009.
  7. Marc Humphries. Rare earth elements: The global supply chain. June 2012.
  8. Michel Bauwens P2P Foundation. Why is open hardware inherently sustainable. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-is-open-hardware-inherently-sustainable/2011/05/24, May 2011.
  9. Marc Humphries. Rare earth elements: The global supply chain. June 2012.
  10. MITNews. Clean energy could lead to scarce materials. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/rare-earth-alternative-energy-0409.html, April 2012.
  11. Joshua M. Pearce. The case for open source appropriate technology. January 2012.
  12. Michel Bauwens P2P Foundation. Why is open hardware inherently sustainable. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-is-open-hardware-inherently-sustainable/2011/05/24, May 2011.
  13. Brief History of Open Source Hardware Organizations and Definitions. http://www.oshwa.org/research/brief-history-of-open-source-hardware-organizations-and-definitions
  14. http://www.ohanda.org/
  15. http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
  16. http://www.oshwa.org/
  17. Sunil Abraham. The fight for digital sovereignty. Economic and Political Weekly, October 2013.
  18. Meetup. http://open-source-hardware.meetup.com
  19. Making society. The worlwide list of open source hardware online stores. http://makingsociety.com/2013/03/the-worlwide-list-of-open-source-hardware-online-stores, March 2013
  20. ITEspresso.es. Hardware abierto: una oportunidad para los emprendedores. http://www.itespresso.es/hardware-abierto-oportunidad-para-emprendedores-116049.html
  21. http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/open-sourced/4422472/Big-backers-of-open-source-hardware
  22. OSWH. http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW, September 2013.
  23. http://opensource.org/docs/osd
  24. http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html
  25. http://www.balloonboard.org/docs/Balloon_License_0v2.pdf
  26. http://solderpad.org/licenses/
  27. http://www.ohwr.org/projects/cernohl/wiki
  28. http://opencores.org/opencores,faq#whatlicense
  29. http://sourceforge.net/projects/freecores/
  30. http://www.oshwa.org/
  31. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation.
  32. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation.
  33. http://www.unconference.net/
  34. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation
  35. Sunil Abraham. The fight for digital sovereignty. Economic and Political Weekly, October 2013.
  36. Meetup. http://open-source-hardware.meetup.com
  37. Making society. The worlwide list of open source hardware online stores. http://makingsociety.com/2013/03/the-worlwide-list-of-open-source-hardware-online-stores, March 2013
  38. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/02/ff_hackathons/all/1
  39. http://www.booksprints.net
  40. http://coworkingeurope.net/about-coworking-conference/
  41. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation
  42. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation
  43. http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces
  44. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation
  45. http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/fabbing/policies-for-fablabs/
  46. http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/fabbing/policies-for-fablabs/
  47. Joshua M. Pearce, Open-Source Lab. How to Build Your Own Hardware and Reduce Research Costs, 2014
  48. http://arduino.cc/
  49. http://p2pfoundation.net/Arduino
  50. http://p2pfoundation.net/Arduino
  51. Joshua M. Pearce, Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware, Science Magazine, Vol 337, September 2012
  52. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation.
  53. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation.
  54. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-source-3d-printing-as-a-means-of-learning-an-educational-experiment-in-two-high-schools-in-greece/2013/11/18
  55. https://www.engineeringforchange.org/news/2011/05/12/can_open_source_hardware_change_how_we_farm.html
  56. http://blog.opensourceecology.org/2010/10/global-village-construction-set-gvcs-in-2-minutes/
  57. http://on3dprinting.com/2013/11/23/google-smartphone-project-ara-3d-printed-3d-systems/ - http://motorola-blog.blogspot.com/2013/10/goodbye-sticky-hello-ara.html
  58. Wikispeed. Green automotive-prototyping company http://wikispeed.org
  59. http://www.open-electronics.org/the-truth-about-open-source-hardware-business-models/
  60. Synthetic overview of the Collaborative Economy. P2P foundation.
  61. Pantelis A. Frangoudis, George C. Polyzos, Vasileios P. Kemerlis. Wireless Community Networks: An Alternative Approach for Nomadic Broadband Network Access. IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine. May 2011
  62. Miquel Oliver, Johan Zuidweg, Michail Batikas. Wireless Commons against the Digital Divide. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. 2010
  63. http://guifi.net
  64. Miquel Oliver, Johan Zuidweg, Michail Batikas. Wireless Commons against the Digital Divide. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. 2010
  65. Pantelis A. Frangoudis, George C. Polyzos, Vasileios P. Kemerlis. Wireless Community Networks: An Alternative Approach for Nomadic Broadband Network Access. IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine. May 2011
  66. http://www.awmn.net
  67. http://www.seattlewireless.net
  68. http://www.nycwireless.net
  69. www.cuwireless.net
  70. R. J. Kramer, A. Lopez, and A. J. Koonen, “Municipal Broadband Access Networks in the Netherlands. Three Successful Cases, and How New Europe May Benefit,” Proc. AccessNets ’06, Athens, Greece, Sept. 2006
  71. B. Milic and M. Malek, “Analyzing Large Scale Real World Wireless Multihop Network,” IEEE Commun. Letters, vol. 11, no. 7, July 2007, pp. 580–82.
  72. J. Bicket et al., “Architecture and Evaluation of An Unplanned 802.11b Mesh Network,” Proc. 11th ACM Annual Int’l. Conf. Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom’05), Cologne, Germany, 2005.
  73. http://www.fon.com
  74. http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/open-design/policies-for-open-design/
  75. http://europeandesigninnovation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Design_for_Growth_and_Prosperity_.pdf
  76. http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/open-design/policies-for-open-design/
  77. http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/fabbing/policies-for-digital-fabrication/
  78. http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2013/fabbing/policies-for-fablabs/ - Massimo Menichinelli, Policies for FabLabs
  79. J.M. Pearce, Open-Source Lab: How to Build Your Own Hardware and Reduce Research Costs, Elsevier, (2014).
  80. Anzalone GC, Glover AG, Pearce JM. Open-Source Colorimeter. Sensors 13(4):5338-5346 (2013).
  81. J.M. Pearce, Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware. Science 337(6100): 1303–1304 (2012).
  82. Open Source Through the Lens of a Microscope. SciDev.Net. (2013).
  83. J.M. Pearce, Open-source hardware for research and education”, Physics Today 66(11), 8 (2013).
  84. Zhang C, Anzalone NC, Faria RP, Pearce JM. Open-Source 3D-Printable Optics Equipment. PLoS ONE 8(3): e59840. (2013).