Talk:List of open-source hardware

Pine64
Pine64 have published schematics for many (all?) of their products. Does that mean that they qualify as open source hardware? Dieselnutjob (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Others
Should the Rascal be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.206.55 (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC‎)
 * As it is an open-source hardware computer system, of course. --Gorlingor (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you, so I went ahead and added the Rascal. --DavidCary (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

System76 - Do people thing that System 76's efforts would qualify? https://opensource.com/article/19/4/system76-hardware --Petecog (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those efforts which are OSHWA certified clearly qualify, but a complete computer is not Open-source hardware just because single components are OSHWA certified. Jonas.smedegaard (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason for Raspberry PI not being on the list? Brunoff (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Qualifications
Some items in these lists build on proprietary hardware. Why'd they count as open-source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.196.43 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The items on these lists count as open source because they meet the definition of open-source hardware or free hardware design.
 * Requiring a small piece of proprietary hardware to manufacture some item does not disqualify that item from listing on this page, any more than including small amounts of proprietary software does not disqualify the coreboot or the Ubuntu (operating system) from being free software projects.
 * Reducing or even eliminating every last vestige of proprietary hardware or software or both from a system is a noble goal. But removing systems from this page because they have not yet met that goal is a kind of perfect solution fallacy.
 * --DavidCary (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * but citation needed:

one purpose of opensource hardware is to defend against backdoors; if we are going to list a device as not being completely opensource, then we should have references that specify which parts are not opensource, so that we can evaluate those parts for their abusability potential.Wikipaddn (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with DavidCary. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I Also agree with DavidCray. Eliminating all proprietory HW in complex systems like consumer products it a HUGE undertaking. Given the dominance of various manufactureres and software companies it's going to be hard. I think these efforts, albeit not totally open (yet), are notable by virtue of the fact that they are taking the first steps on a long road. --Petecog (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

MIPS?
§ Instruction sets lists MIPS, probably as a reference to the MIPS Open Initiative. However, in MIPS architecture it is stated that the project was closed in late 2019, with a link to an article that doesn't link to any references or press announcements. Should MIPS be removed from the list?

The official MIPS website still has a page about MIPS Open, which links to the defunct site mipsopen.com and doesn't mention anything about the project closing, so it is unclear whether the information from the referenced article is correct.

—Cousteau (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)