J_K9 @ Linux

Open Hardware: Revolutionising Linux

February 9, 2007 on 5:39 pm | In Linux |

The first project I would like to talk about is OpenOEM, which aims to build and sell a line of computers consisting entirely of “Open Hardware” - that is, hardware whose documentation is under an Open Source licence, allowing the public to attempt to build upon its specifications and build their own version of the hardware, if they wish. In their own words:

Mission Statement

To build the best Open Computer that combines power, simplicity and elegance by creating new Open Source Hardware and Software or by leveraging existing Open Source Technologies.

What’s so great about this? After all, a computer is a computer - who cares whether the underlying components that make it work are open or not? Well, we’ve all seen what Open Source software has and can accomplish - just about anything. The advantages and possibilities are even greater with Open Hardware. If you have been following the OpenMoko Open Source mobile phone project, you will know what extra steps Open Hardware allows you to go and which boundaries it allows you to surpass. For more information about Open OEM’s aims, reasons and plans, please see their articles and discussion forums.

With Open Hardware, Linux could have drivers and firmware updates available for devices and the latest technology within days of its release. Those drivers could be Open Source too, rather than proprietary, which would allow their users to ensure their security and stability as well as being secure in the knowledge that the driver is absolutely free, as in both speech and beer. We could optimise the Open Source graphics drivers to create faster and more powerful rendering engines, allowing projects like Beryl to flourish even more than they currently do. Intel is currently the only main graphics card manufacturer to release Open Source drivers for their graphics chipsets. However, one of the main problems is that their chipsets are only found as on-board graphics cards on motherboards, which means that they are not sold as separate AGP or PCI-Express cards. What if Intel released its graphics chipsets’ documentation under an Open Hardware licence? Bruce Perens has one of many answers:

As far as I can tell, these [Intel] devices only come on motherboards. Well gee, why doesn’t someone buy these Intel chips and put them on a card? Because that would be a fully open source 3-D card. So I think that we can make great hay in the peripheral device space right now.

This is why Open Hardware would be advantageous - it would allow for an endless number of advancements in technology and in Linux’s functionality. Linux would just work on computers with Open Hardware. It already does so on “closed” hardware, but there are several cards and peripherals for which there are only proprietary drivers available, and for a small amount no drivers are available at all. The complexities in writing drivers for hardware whose documentation has not been released becomes evident when a Linux distribution does not automatically recognise, say, your wireless card, or your screen resolution. This would no longer be a problem with Open Hardware.

And what will allow this dream to come true? Licences such as the TAPR Open Hardware Licence are attempts at making releasing hardware to the general public under an open licence easier for hardware manufacturers. This licence in particular is being written to tackle the problems which have stopped manufacturers from releasing their hardware specifications in the past, as you can read about in more detail on TAPR’s website or in an article on Linux.com about Eric S. Raymond’s and Russ Nelson’s comments on the licence draft. The current draft, version 0.9, is available for download in PDF format from TAPR’s website. Raymond said the following of the TAPR OHL:

I think it’s safe to say that the [OSI] board is generally in favor of the idea of open source hardware, but I see lots and lots of problems with this license, and I’m pretty sure the board would down-check it.

He was also fairly critical of the licence’s definition of the term “distribution”:

I boggle at this. This essentially strips the word ‘distribution’ of its normal meaning, assuring lots of contention over edge cases.

To be honest, I think he is nit-picking and being slightly pedantic, but this is exactly what the licence requires at the moment - its errors and grey areas need to be corrected if we want this licence to become a convincing and valid option for hardware manufacturers.

Open Hardware is the way forwards. Granted, some hardware manufacturers may excuse themselves by saying that releasing their specifications under an open licence would allow their competition to discover the details of their technological advances and thus make the market more aggressive - and not in their favour. I must admit, I have yet to read TAPR’s OHL (I have only read reviews of it), but if it’s anything like the GPL it will require any modifications made to the original specification to be released under the same licence which would effectively counter this argument, for the original manufacturer could implement any third party improvements they wished. And with existing projects such as OpenCores at their prime, when better to release an Open Hardware licence to allow hardware manufacturers to follow in their lead?