Terminology: What does "Source" mean in Open Source Appropriate Technology?

[Chris Watkins]

I've sometimes been pulled up for referring to Open Source Appropriate Technology (OSAT), by people who are into open source software. The argument is that there is no "source code" for a physical technology.

I disagree - the source in "open source" doesn't have to refer to computer code, and the term "Open Source Appropriate Technology" is already established. The only potential issue I see is with the Open Source Definition (from the Open Source Initiative, OSI, the people who hold the trademark on the term "Open Source"). This definition assumes we're talking about software - other than that I think we should apply the same principles of openness to how we define OSAT.*

So, the following is partly some pedantic rambling on my part that I can point to in case anyone wants to know why I say "open source appropriate technology". And it's partly because definitions matter - we see that in open source software, where OSI has been able to stop corporations from co-opting the term "open source".

So, the question that's sometimes raised is: is it valid to refer to designs and information about appropriate technology as "source," whether they are whether descriptions in text, or human-readable or machine-readable design instructions? Sounds fair to me - it makes sense that source can mean something other than "source code for a computer program".

I like "Open Source" because you say it and people get it. "Open Design" is less controversial, but doesn't have that recognition - at least not yet. I also see that the Wikipedia article is Open source hardware (see this discussion on whether source is appropriate - the bottom line is that source" is the more commonly used term - some think it's less accurate, but noone there seemed hung up on it.)

In the past I've suggested Open Design Appropriate Technology, but I'm the only one that has ever used it, I believe. And to be honest, "Open Source Appropriate Technology" is much catchier and clearer. So as long as we can make an argument for the use of the word source, we can think about changing our terminology if and when "Open Design" ever comes to be widely understood.

If you wonder why I'm being pedantic, it's because it's important to how we market these ideas.

Feedback? If you have a serious objection to the usage of the term, speak now.

*The one issue that comes to mind with the Open Source Definition is that it would exclude Vinay's idea of restricting commercial use by large companies, requiring them to negotiate and pay a royalty. At the same time, I think Vinay might be onto something with that idea, so it's a matter of coming up with a different term for that concept - because it's not true open source.

[Thomas Bjelkeman-Pettersson]

is it valid to refer to designs and information about appropriate technology as "source," whether they are whether descriptions in text, or human-readable or machine-readable design instructions?

I certainly think so. I use the term "open source" to refer to open design instructions. Lawrence Lessig proposed in an email to me that one should license hardware which is "open source" using the Creative Commons licenses.

Nothing technological can be built without a design. The design is what is "open source". The design (which is conceptual) is the source of the material thing you build.

[Vinay Gupta]

Yep, I'd agree with this. Basically the "source" is the written or video instructions which end users "compile" into devices. It works :-)

[Agroinnovations]

Yes, it comes down to the design, naturally. Rep-rap is about as clear of an example as you can get of this. You can go and download designs from reprap project right now, and if you have a reprap machine just upload the design into the machine and it will fab it based on that. Now a design may be different than code in that it is more likely based on some kind of 2-D or 3-D CAD type drawing, which in my mind is ultimately the source of the thing. Why would the big transnationals go through all the trouble to patent everything from cell-phone designs to backpacks with straws in them if there wasn't some fundamental source from which this stuff could be easily and readily replicated and manufactured?

This is (in part) the real revolution of reprap and the like, it brings OSAT much closer to FOSS in that minor tweaks can be made and re-released on the fly in a useful and immediately applicable fashion.

[SashaMrkailo]

Source is knowledge,for me, in this context. Open source is open knowledge, whether it is code or design.