That is why Freeduino (www.freeduino.org) was created. Arduino is an open source hardware and software project but the name Arduino is trade marked by the Arduino Team. Some variations were created, like the lilypad and fully sponsored by the Arduino Team. I think the team wants to see "significant changes" in the derivative work for them to get interested in and sponsor it. With Freeduino, you can do whatever you like... there are many derivative work already done.A lot of discussion already passed through this forum about this topic.
There is already quite an ecology of work based on arduino and people have been doing all sorts of work and extensions with arduino.
Great points, Oracle.As Massimo mentioned, there are a lot of people building on Arduino: making new board designs, shields, libraries, etc. But, as you say, it's not so easy for those people to collaborate.What do you think would help that process?
Have any particular projects in mind?
QuoteThere is already quite an ecology of work based on arduino and people have been doing all sorts of work and extensions with arduino.Exactly, which is a good thing. But ther is no framework in place where I can say "I've got this project I'm working on, the scope is getting big, does anyone want to co-develop it with me".
Arduino makes it possible for people from 'all walks of life and industry' to engage in electronic applications development. Those 'classic engineering types', may know how to "put a pic in a breadboard and program it in assembler for 2 dollars", but would they know how to apply that capability to create any number of "tiny" "seemingly insignificant" innovations that could end up saving millions of dollar$ for the agricultural industry, or any industry for that matter which is not directly related to their engineering skill-set?
Yes there are some, but thanks to Arduino, there will be "a lot" more who don't think like 'classic engineers'. And with that, will come innovation and new inventions that no one's ever thought possible because the cost of prototyping and undertaking feasibility studies, have largely been limited by how many 'classic engineers' you could afford to pay.
And with regard to collaborating, there are people here who have a mind-set that their advice is worth more than a "thanks". And indeed, who's to say they'll be remunerated for contributing to a project that does eventually make money? So that's part of the dilemma as I see it, which is different from collaborating on open-source software applications. With software, everyone's got a copy they are free to use and distribute, but hardware is an entirely different ball game because what gets designed here, might well end up inside the next microwave oven - and who will be the wiser?
I'm to the point in my own project (Array of Optoisolators - http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1204135553/6) where I'd love to collaborate with others and get some prototype boards built. More specific forums for this would be great!These projects are beyond the scope of an Arduino tinkerer, so they shouldn't be mixed in with, say Freqently-Asked Questions!
I do have the classic engineering (well actually computer science with a strong hardware component) background, and I've used those $2 pics in assember for years. And I love Arduino.
Keep in mind, the ATMEGA168 is basically a $2 chip as well. Arduino is all about the environment around it, from the easy USB interface to the software tool. It's fantastic for all the reasons you say. Even with PICs, it's a lot of work in assembly, and then when the 16F series can't cut it, it's a whole new learning curve for the 18F. AVR's might be just as bad, but I love the fact that I don't even have to know if that's true.
I certainly think it helps me use the Arduino to think like a "classic engineer"
If you want to be renumerated for your work, you're in the wrong place here. First of all, free open source software is used all the time in commercial software, both illegally and legally. There are companies who take an open source project, reuse the code, and sell the result, and it's not hard for the developer to prove it's their software. Slashdot is filled with examples.In the hardware example, if I release my project under an open source license, and somebody uses it in a microwave and sells a million of them without giving me a cent, that would be perfectly allowable under the idea of open source *because* they're selling you the microwave hardware and giving you my design for free.
The 168's a $3.45 chip, add shipping and it's closer to $5. The Arduino is more powerful that it's given credit for (especially at any of the AVR forums) it's an enabling technology that has yet to realize it's full potential.Not that it's the point, but the ATMEGA168 is $2.58 at Digikey when you buy 25. The most comparable PIC I've used is the 18F252 which is $5.30 when you buy 25. The 16F648A I have a lot of experience with is $1.90 each for 25, and much less capable. IMO, the PIC is not a cheaper option, just different.QuoteI've contributed to several open source CMS's over the years so I know those ropes very well, and you might be comfortable giving away your hardware designs for another to profit, but others wouldn't / aren't - even the Arduino people are here to make money, and they deserve to, there's more "commercial" happening here than is immediately transparent For what the Arduino boards cost at retail, and given that they've sold something over 10,000 "genuine" boards, I would doubt very much that they've made minimum wage for their time. I'm sure they'd love to profit from it, but so far, they're more interested in growing the brand
I've contributed to several open source CMS's over the years so I know those ropes very well, and you might be comfortable giving away your hardware designs for another to profit, but others wouldn't / aren't - even the Arduino people are here to make money, and they deserve to, there's more "commercial" happening here than is immediately transparent