I think the new blog will be where we'll hear about the answer to this question, perhaps?
Under the (excellent) Arduino team's direction, Arduino has matured so far and so quickly that it is perhaps time to clarify the finer points: the trademark, the hardware production files etc.
While "rules" are hard to find and even harder to write for open source hardware projects, there is this open-source definition published by OSI, the Open Source Initiative. On their site they call themselves the "stewards of the Open Source Definition (OSD) and the community-recognized body for reviewing and approving licenses as OSD-conformant."
In their definition of Open-source, they say:
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
- Free Redistribution. The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. "
Further on, they say this about prohibiting commercial uses of the "open-source" design:
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Arduino's design is indeed open, and it has been from the beginning promoted as an "open-source" project. But it's production files, a key part of the project, are closed, and users are prohibited from personal or commercial use of the currently shipping models by virtue of their lack of access to those files.
I'm not saying it wasn't a good strategy to do it this way. It has really served its purpose, by funneling some resources into the concerted and intense work the team has done on the project.
What I am saying is that now that the project has made over 10,000 boards, is it perhaps time to have a community discussion about what's open and what's not. It would be productive on many levels, and it might clarify the current license murkiness. If the current hardware is to remain closed and attached to one manufacturer (and let me say here he's a terrific manufactuer and also a good person ), then I wonder what kind of model that is...
And finally, if trademarks ( the new Diecimila is sporting a "TM" on the Arduino name) are to be used to protect this manufacturing advantage that has propelled to project to this point, what does this mean to the hundreds of people who have contributed to the project?
I'm not proposing any answers in this post, just lots and lots of questions, in the hopes that we can have a community-based discussion about this, rather than one that is just team-based.
Daniel
edit: fixed the link to the blog, and added link to the OSI open-source definition; added point 8 of OSI definition.