Open-source hardware

Last updated
The "open source hardware" logo proposed by OSHWA, one of the main defining organizations Open-source-hardware-logo.svg
The "open source hardware" logo proposed by OSHWA, one of the main defining organizations
The RepRap Mendel general-purpose 3D printer with the ability to make copies of most of its own structural parts RepRap 'Mendel'.jpg
The RepRap Mendel general-purpose 3D printer with the ability to make copies of most of its own structural parts

Open-source hardware (OSH) consists of physical artifacts of technology designed and offered by the open-design movement. Both free and open-source software (FOSS) and open-source hardware are created by this open-source culture movement and apply a like concept to a variety of components. It is sometimes, thus, referred to as FOSH (free and open-source hardware). The term usually means that information about the hardware is easily discerned so that others can make it – coupling it closely to the maker movement. [1] Hardware design (i.e. mechanical drawings, schematics, bills of material, PCB layout data, HDL source code [2] and integrated circuit layout data), in addition to the software that drives the hardware, are all released under free/libre terms. The original sharer gains feedback and potentially improvements on the design from the FOSH community. There is now significant evidence that such sharing can drive a high return on investment for the scientific community. [3]


Since the rise of reconfigurable programmable logic devices, sharing of logic designs has been a form of open-source hardware. Instead of the schematics, hardware description language (HDL) code is shared. HDL descriptions are commonly used to set up system-on-a-chip systems either in field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA) or directly in application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) designs. HDL modules, when distributed, are called semiconductor intellectual property cores, also known as IP cores.

Open-source hardware also helps alleviate the issue of proprietary device drivers for the free and open-source software community, however, it is not a pre-requisite for it, and should not be confused with the concept of open documentation for proprietary hardware, which is already sufficient for writing FLOSS device drivers and complete operating systems. [4] [5] The difference between the two concepts is that OSH includes both the instructions on how to replicate the hardware itself as well as the information on communication protocols that the software (usually in the form of device drivers) must use in order to communicate with the hardware (often called register documentation, or open documentation for hardware [4] ), whereas open-source-friendly proprietary hardware would only include the latter without including the former.

History logo (2013) logo (2013)
OSHWA logo Oshwalogo.png
OSHWA logo

The first hardware focused "open source" activities were started around 1997 by Bruce Perens, creator of the Open Source Definition, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, and a ham radio operator. He launched the Open Hardware Certification Program, which had the goal of allowing hardware manufacturers to self-certify their products as open. [6] [7]

Shortly after the launch of the Open Hardware Certification Program, David Freeman announced the Open Hardware Specification Project (OHSpec), another attempt at licensing hardware components whose interfaces are available publicly and of creating an entirely new computing platform as an alternative to proprietary computing systems. [8] In early 1999, Sepehr Kiani, Ryan Vallance and Samir Nayfeh joined efforts to apply the open-source philosophy to machine design applications. Together they established the Open Design Foundation (ODF) [9] as a non-profit corporation and set out to develop an Open Design Definition. However, most of these activities faded out after a few years.

A "Free Hardware" organization, known as FreeIO, was started in the late 1990s by Diehl Martin, who also launched a FreeIO website in early 2000. In the early to mid 2000s, FreeIO was a focus of free/open hardware designs released under the GNU General Public License. The FreeIO project advocated the concept of Free Hardware and proposed four freedoms that such hardware provided to users, based on the similar freedoms provided by free software licenses. [10] The designs gained some notoriety due to Martin's naming scheme in which each free hardware project was given the name of a breakfast food such as Donut, Flapjack, Toast, etc. Martin's projects attracted a variety of hardware and software developers as well as other volunteers. Development of new open hardware designs at FreeIO ended in 2007 when Martin died of pancreatic cancer but the existing designs remain available from the organization's website. [11]

By the mid 2000s open-source hardware again became a hub of activity due to the emergence of several major open-source hardware projects and companies, such as OpenCores, RepRap (3D printing), Arduino, Adafruit and SparkFun. In 2007, Perens reactivated the website.

Following the Open Graphics Project, an effort to design, implement, and manufacture a free and open 3D graphics chip set and reference graphics card, Timothy Miller suggested the creation of an organization to safeguard the interests of the Open Graphics Project community. Thus, Patrick McNamara founded the Open Hardware Foundation (OHF) in 2007. [12]

The Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corporation (TAPR), founded in 1982 as a non-profit organization of amateur radio operators with the goals of supporting R&D efforts in the area of amateur digital communications, created in 2007 the first open hardware license, the TAPR Open Hardware License. The OSI president Eric S. Raymond expressed some concerns about certain aspects of the OHL and decided to not review the license. [13]

Around 2010 in context of the Freedom Defined project, the Open Hardware Definition was created as collaborative work of many [14] and is accepted as of 2016 by dozens of organizations and companies. [15]

In July 2011, CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) released an open-source hardware license, CERN OHL. Javier Serrano, an engineer at CERN's Beams Department and the founder of the Open Hardware Repository, explained: "By sharing designs openly, CERN expects to improve the quality of designs through peer review and to guarantee their users – including commercial companies – the freedom to study, modify and manufacture them, leading to better hardware and less duplication of efforts". [16] While initially drafted to address CERN-specific concerns, such as tracing the impact of the organization's research, in its current form it can be used by anyone developing open-source hardware. [17]

Following the 2011 Open Hardware Summit, and after heated debates on licenses and what constitutes open-source hardware, Bruce Perens abandoned the OSHW Definition and the concerted efforts of those involved with it. [18], led by Bruce Perens, promotes and identifies practices that meet all the combined requirements of the Open Source Hardware Definition, the Open Source Definition, and the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Foundation [19] Since 2014 is not online and seems to have ceased activity. [20]

The Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) at proposes Open source hardware and acts as hub of open-source hardware activity of all genres, while cooperating with other entities such as TAPR, CERN, and OSI. The OSHWA was established as an organization in June 2012 in Delaware and filed for tax exemption status in July 2013. [21] After some debates about trademark interferences with the OSI, in 2012 the OSHWA and the OSI signed a co-existence agreement. [22] [23]

FSF's Replicant project suggested in 2016 an alternative "free hardware" definition, derived from the FSF's four freedoms. [24]

Forms of open-source hardware

The term hardware in open-source hardware has been historically used in opposition to the term software of open-source software. That is, to refer to the electronic hardware on which the software runs (see previous section). However, as more and more non-electronic hardware products are made open source (for example Wikihouse, OpenBeam or Hovalin), this term tends to be used back in its broader sense of "physical product". The field of open-source hardware has been shown to go beyond electronic hardware and to cover a larger range of product categories such as machine tools, vehicles and medical equipment. [25] In that sense, hardware refers to any form of tangible product, be it electronic hardware, mechanical hardware, textile or even construction hardware. The Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Definition 1.0 defines hardware as "tangible artifacts — machines, devices, or other physical things". [26]


Due to a mixture of privacy, security, and environmental concerns, a number of projects have started that aim to deliver a variety of open-source computing devices. Examples include the EOMA68 (SBC in a PCMCIA form-factor, intended to be plugged into a laptop or desktop chassis), Novena (bare motherboard with optional laptop chassis), and GnuBee (series of Network Attached Storage devices).

Several retrocomputing hobby groups have created numerous recreations or adaptations of the early home computers of the 1970s and 80s, some of which include improved functionality and more modern components (such as surface-mount ICs and SD card readers). [27] [28] [29] Some hobbyists have also developed add-on cards (such as drive controllers, [30] memory expansion, [31] and sound cards [32] ) to improve the functionality of older computers. Miniaturised recreations of vintage computers have also been created. [33]


Electronics is one of the most popular types of open-source hardware. There are many companies that provide large varieties of open-source electronics such as Sparkfun, Adafruit and Seeed. In addition, there are NPOs and companies that provide a specific open-source electronic component such as the Arduino electronics prototyping platform. There are many examples of specialty open-source electronics such as low-cost voltage and current GMAW open-source 3-D printer monitor [34] [35] and a robotics-assisted mass spectrometry assay platform. [36] [37] Open-source electronics finds various uses, including automation of chemical procedures. [38] [39]


A large range of open-source mechatronic products have been developed including mechanical components, machine tools, vehicles, musical instruments, and medical equipment. [25] Examples of open-source machine-tools include 3D printers such as RepRap, Prusa, and Ultimaker as well as the laser cutter Lasersaur. Open-source vehicles have also been developed including bicycles like XYZ Space Frame Vehicles and cars such as the Tabby OSVehicle. Examples of open source medical equipment include open-source ventilators, the echostethoscope echOpen and a wide range of prosthetic hands listed in the review study by Ten Kate [40] e.g. the OpenBionics’ Prosthetic Hands.


Examples of open-source hardware products can also be found to a lesser extent in construction (Wikihouse), textile (Kit Zéro Kilomètres), and firearms (3D printed firearm, Defense Distributed).


Rather than creating a new license, some open-source hardware projects use existing, free and open-source software licenses. [41] These licenses may not accord well with patent law. [42]

Later, several new licenses were proposed, designed to address issues specific to hardware design. [43] In these licenses, many of the fundamental principles expressed in open-source software (OSS) licenses have been "ported" to their counterpart hardware projects. New hardware licenses are often explained as the "hardware equivalent" of a well-known OSS license, such as the GPL, LGPL, or BSD license.

Despite superficial similarities to software licenses, most hardware licenses are fundamentally different: by nature, they typically rely more heavily on patent law than on copyright law, as many hardware designs are not copyrightable. [44] Whereas a copyright license may control the distribution of the source code or design documents, a patent license may control the use and manufacturing of the physical device built from the design documents. This distinction is explicitly mentioned in the preamble of the TAPR Open Hardware License:

"... those who benefit from an OHL design may not bring lawsuits claiming that design infringes their patents or other intellectual property."

TAPR Open Hardware License [45]

Noteworthy licenses include:

The Open Source Hardware Association recommends seven licenses which follow their open-source hardware definition. [50] From the general copyleft licenses the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, from the hardware-specific copyleft licenses the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL) and TAPR Open Hardware License (OHL) and from the permissive licenses the FreeBSD license, the MIT license, and the Creative Commons Attribution license. [51] recommended in 2012 the TAPR Open Hardware License, Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 and GPL 3.0 license. [52]

Organizations tend to rally around a shared license. For example, OpenCores prefers the LGPL or a Modified BSD License, [53] FreeCores insists on the GPL, [54] Open Hardware Foundation promotes "copyleft or other permissive licenses", [55] the Open Graphics Project uses [56] a variety of licenses, including the MIT license, GPL, and a proprietary license, [57] and the Balloon Project wrote their own license. [58]


The OSHW (Open Source Hardware) logo silkscreened on an unpopulated PCB Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Logo on blank PCB.jpg
The OSHW (Open Source Hardware) logo silkscreened on an unpopulated PCB

The adjective "open-source" not only refers to a specific set of freedoms applying to a product, but also generally presupposes that the product is the object or the result of a "process that relies on the contributions of geographically dispersed developers via the Internet." [59] In practice however, in both fields of open-source hardware and open-source software, products may either be the result of a development process performed by a closed team in a private setting or by a community in a public environment, the first case being more frequent than the second which is more challenging. [25] Establishing a community-based product development process faces several challenges such as: to find appropriate product data management tools, document not only the product but also the development process itself, accepting losing ubiquitous control over the project, ensure continuity in a context of fickle participation of voluntary project members, among others. [60]

The Arduino Diecimila, another popular and early open source hardware design. Arduino Diecimila.jpg
The Arduino Diecimila, another popular and early open source hardware design.

One of the major differences between developing open-source software and developing open-source hardware is that hardware results in tangible outputs, which cost money to prototype and manufacture. As a result, the phrase "free as in speech, not as in beer", [61] more formally known as Gratis versus Libre, distinguishes between the idea of zero cost and the freedom to use and modify information. While open-source hardware faces challenges in minimizing cost and reducing financial risks for individual project developers, some community members have proposed models to address these needs [62] Given this, there are initiatives to develop sustainable community funding mechanisms, such as the Open Source Hardware Central Bank.

Extensive discussion has taken place on ways to make open-source hardware as accessible as open-source software. Providing clear and detailed product documentation is an essential factor facilitating product replication and collaboration in hardware development projects. Practical guides have been developed to help practitioners to do so. [63] [64] Another option is to design products so they are easy to replicate, as exemplified in the concept of open-source appropriate technology. [65]

The process of developing open-source hardware in a community-based setting is alternatively called open design, open source development [66] or open source product development. [67] All these terms are examples of the open-source model applicable for the development of any product, including software, hardware, cultural and educational. See here for a delineation of these terms.

A major contributor to the production of open-source hardware product designs is the scientific community. There has been considerable work to produce open-source hardware for scientific hardware using a combination of open-source electronics and 3-D printing. [68] [69] [70] Other sources of open-source hardware production are vendors of chips and other electronic components sponsoring contests with the provision that the participants and winners must share their designs. Circuit Cellar magazine organizes some of these contests.

Open-source labs

A guide has been published (Open-Source Lab (book) by Joshua Pearce) on using open-source electronics and 3D printing to make open-source labs. Today, scientists are creating many such labs. Examples include:

Business models

Open hardware companies are experimenting with business models. [73] For example, littleBits implements open-source business models by making available the circuit designs in each littleBits module, in accordance with the CERN Open Hardware License Version 1.2. [74] Another example is Arduino, which registered its name as a trademark; others may manufacture products from Arduino designs but cannot call the products Arduino products. [75] There are many applicable business models for implementing some open-source hardware even in traditional firms. For example, to accelerate development and technical innovation, the photovoltaic industry has experimented with partnerships, franchises, secondary supplier and completely open-source models. [76]

Recently, many open-source hardware projects were funded via crowdfunding on Indiegogo or Kickstarter. Especially popular is Crowd Supply for crowdfunding open hardware projects. [77]

Reception and impact

Richard Stallman, the founder of the free software movement, was in 1999 skeptical on the idea and relevance of free hardware (his terminology for what is now known as open-source hardware). [78] In a 2015 article in Wired Magazine, he modified this attitude; he acknowledged the importance of free hardware, he still saw no ethical parallel with free software. [79] Also, Stallman prefers the term free hardware design over open source hardware, a request which is consistent with his earlier rejection of the term open source software (see also Alternative terms for free software). [79]

Other authors, such as Professor Joshua Pearce have argued there is an ethical imperative for open-source hardware – specifically with respect to open-source appropriate technology for sustainable development. [80] In 2014, he also wrote the book Open-Source Lab: How to Build Your Own Hardware and Reduce Research Costs , which details the development of free and open-source hardware primarily for scientists and university faculty. [81] Pearce in partnership with Elsevier introduced a scientific journal HardwareX . It has featured many examples of applications of open-source hardware for scientific purposes.

See also

Related Research Articles

Bruce Perens

Bruce Perens is an American computer programmer and advocate in the free software movement. He created The Open Source Definition and published the first formal announcement and manifesto of open source. He co-founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI) with Eric S. Raymond. Today, he is a partner at OSS Capital.

Free software Software licensed to preserve user freedoms

Free software is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. Free software is a matter of liberty, not price: all users are legally free to do what they want with their copies of a free software regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program. Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.

Free software movement Social and political movement

The free software movement is a social movement with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedom to run the software, to study the software, to modify the software, to share possibly modified copies of the software. Software which meets these requirements is termed free software. The word 'free' is ambiguous in English, although in this context, it means 'free as in freedom', not 'free as in zero price'. A common example is, "to think of free speech, not free beer."

Open-source software Software licensed to ensure source code usage rights

Open-source software (OSS) is a type of computer software in which source code is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration.

Open-design movement Movement for product development with publicly shared designs

The open-design movement involves the development of physical products, machines and systems through use of publicly shared design information. This includes the making of both free and open-source software (FOSS) as well as open-source hardware. The process is generally facilitated by the Internet and often performed without monetary compensation. The goals and philosophy of the movement are identical to that of the open-source movement, but are implemented for the development of physical products rather than software. Open design is a form of co-creation, where the final product is designed by the users, rather than an external stakeholder such as a private company.

Free and open-source software Software whose source code is available and which is permissively licensed.

Free and open-source software (FOSS) is software that can be classified as both free software and open-source software. That is, anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software. This is in contrast to proprietary software, where the software is under restrictive copyright licensing and the source code is usually hidden from the users.

Free-culture movement Social movement promoting the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others

The free-culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others in the form of free content or open content without compensation to, or the consent of, the work's original creators, by using the Internet and other forms of media.

Patentleft is the practice of licensing patents for royalty-free use, on the condition that adopters license related improvements they develop under the same terms. Copyleft-style licensors seek "continuous growth of a universally accessible technology commons" from which they, and others, will benefit.

Free-software license license allowing software modification and redistribution

A free-software license is a notice that grants the recipient of a piece of software extensive rights to modify and redistribute that software. These actions are usually prohibited by copyright law, but the rights-holder of a piece of software can remove these restrictions by accompanying the software with a software license which grants the recipient these rights. Software using such a license is free software as conferred by the copyright holder. Free-software licenses are applied to software in source code and also binary object-code form, as the copyright law recognizes both forms.

Copyleft Practice of mandating free use in all derivatives of a work

Copyleft is the practice of granting the right to freely distribute and modify intellectual property with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works created from that property. Copyleft in the form of licenses can be used to maintain copyright conditions for works ranging from computer software, to documents, art, scientific discoveries and even certain patents.

The open-source model is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration. A main principle of open-source software development is peer production, with products such as source code, blueprints, and documentation freely available to the public. The open-source movement in software began as a response to the limitations of proprietary code. The model is used for projects such as in open-source appropriate technology, and open-source drug discovery.

The TAPR Open Hardware License is a license used in open-source hardware projects. It was created by Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR), an international amateur radio organization. Version 1.0 was published on May 25, 2007.

The CERN Open Hardware Licence is a license used in open-source hardware projects. It was created by CERN, which published version 1.0 in March 2011. Version 1.1 was published in July 2011. Version 1.2 was published in September 2013. Version 2.0, which utilizes a simplified language and covers also integrated circuit designs, was published in March 2020.

A free license or open license is a license agreement which contains provisions that allow other individuals to reuse another creator's work, giving them four major freedoms. Without a special license, these uses are normally prohibited by copyright law or commercial license. Most free licenses are worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and perpetual. Free licenses are often the basis of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding projects.

Open Hardware and Design Alliance

The Open Hardware and Design Alliance (OHANDA) aims at encouraging the sharing of open hardware and designs. The core of the project is a free online service where manufacturers of Open hardware and designs can register their products with a common label. This label maps the four freedoms of Free Software to physical devices and their documentation. It is similar to a non-registered trademark for hardware and can be compared to other certificates such as U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or CE mark. OHANDA thus has the role of a self-organized registration authority.

<i>Open-Source Lab</i> (book)

The Open-Source Lab: How to Build Your Own Hardware and Reduce Research Costs by Joshua M. Pearce was published in 2014 by Elsevier.

Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution. Products include permission to use the source code, design documents, or content of the product. It most commonly refers to the open-source model, in which open-source software or other products are released under an open-source license as part of the open-source-software movement. Use of the term originated with software, but has expanded beyond the software sector to cover other open content and forms of open collaboration.

<i>Journal of Open Hardware</i> Academic journal

The Journal of Open Hardware is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal for open-source hardware development. The Journal publishes Hardware Metapapers which describe open-source research hardware, and is the currently the only scientific journal extending its peer review to hardware documentations hosted on external platforms. The Journal also publishes full-length articles on Issues in Open Hardware—including socio-economic and legal issues related to open hardware—and review articles. The journal's encourages papers from across academic, professional, and non-academic communities.


  1. Alicia Gibb (Ed.) Building Open Source Hardware: DIY Manufacturing for Hackers and Makers, Addison-Wesley: New York, pp. 253–277 (2015).
  2. "Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs". Free Software Foundation Inc.
  3. Joshua M. Pearce. (2015-06-20). "Return on Investment for Open Source Hardware Development". Science and Public Policy. 43 (2): 192–195. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv034 .
  4. 1 2 Theo de Raadt (2016-12-03). Open Documentation for Hardware. OpenCON 2006, 2–3 December 2006. Courtyard Venice Airport, Venice/Tessera, Italy.
  5. Murenin, Constantine A. (2006-12-10). "Почему так важно иметь документацию по программированию железа". (in Russian).
  6. Perens, B. 1997. Announcing: The Open Hardware Certification Program. Debian Announce List. .
  7. The Open Hardware Certification Program on (November 1998).
  8. Freeman, D. 1998. OHSpec: The Open Hardware Specification Project.
  9. Retrieved May 25, 2020
  10. FreeIO: Free Hardware Definition
  11. FreeIO: About Diehl Martin
  12. McNamara, P. 2007a. "Open Hardware". The Open Source Business Resource (September 2007: Defining Open Source). "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-01-06. Retrieved 2016-03-05.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link).
  13. 1 2 Ars Technica: TAPR introduces open-source hardware license, OSI skeptical.
  14. Freedom Defined. 2011. Open Source Hardware Definition. Freedom Defined. .
  15. OSHW.
  16. CERN launches Open Hardware initiative Archived 2012-07-01 at the Wayback Machine . CERN. 2011.
  17. Ayass, M. 2011. CERN's Open Hardware License Archived 2011-12-06 at the Wayback Machine .
  18. Bruce Perens, 2011a. Promoting Open Hardware.
  19. Bruce Perens. 2011b. Open Hardware – Constitution. Open Hardware.
  20. You've reached a web site owned by Perens LLC on
  21. brief-history-of-open-source-hardware-organizations-and-definitions on
  22. An Important Question on the Open Source Hardware Mark on (August 2012).
  23. co-existence on (October 2012).
  24. Replicant – Freedom and privacy/security issues [online]. (2016). Available from (Accessed 02/22/2016) "The freedom to use the hardware, for any purpose. The freedom to study how the hardware works, and change it so it works as you wish. Access to the hardware design source is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies of the hardware and its design so you can help your neighbor. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the hardware design source is a precondition for this".
  25. 1 2 3 Bonvoisin, Jérémy; Mies, Robert; Boujut, Jean-François; Stark, Rainer (2017-09-05). "What is the 'Source' of Open Source Hardware?". Journal of Open Hardware. 1 (1). doi: 10.5334/joh.7 . ISSN   2514-1708.
  26. "Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Definition 1.0". Open Source Hardware Association. 2012-05-26.
  27. "start [RetroBrew Computers Wiki]". Retrieved 2017-11-17.
  28. "S100 Computers - Cards For Sale". Retrieved 2017-11-17.
  29. "Xi 8088 - Malinov Family Web Presence". Retrieved 2017-11-17.
  30. "XTIDE project". Vintage Computer Forum. Retrieved 2017-11-17.
  31. "Lo-tech Memory Boards -". Retrieved 2017-11-17.
  32. "Lo-tech Audio Boards -". Retrieved 2017-11-17.
  33. "Obsolescence Guaranteed" . Retrieved 2017-11-17.
  34. Pinar, A.; Wijnen, B.; Anzalone, G. C.; Havens, T. C.; Sanders, P. G.; Pearce, J. M. (2015). "Low-Cost Open-Source Voltage and Current Monitor for Gas Metal Arc Weld 3D Printing". Journal of Sensors. 2015: 1–8. doi: 10.1155/2015/876714 .
  35. Nilsiam, Yuenyong; Haselhuhn, Amberlee; Wijnen, Bas; Sanders, Paul; Pearce, Joshua (2015). "Integrated Voltage—Current Monitoring and Control of Gas Metal Arc Weld Magnetic Ball-Jointed Open Source 3-D Printer". Machines. 3 (4): 339–351. doi: 10.3390/machines3040339 .
  36. Chiu, S. H. and Urban, P. L., 2015. Robotics-assisted mass spectrometry assay platform enabled by open-source electronics. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 64, p. 260–268.
  37. Chen C.-L., Chen T.-R., Chiu S.-H., and Urban P.L., 2017. Dual robotic arm "production line" mass spectrometry assay guided by multiple Arduino-type microcontrollers. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 239, p. 608-616.
  38. Urban P.L. 2015, Universal electronics for miniature and automated chemical assays. Analyst 140, p. 963-975.
  39. Prabhu G.R.D. and Urban P.L. 2017, The dawn of unmanned analytical laboratories. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 88, p. 41-52.
  40. Kate, Jelle ten; Smit, Gerwin; Breedveld, Paul (3 April 2017). "3D-printed upper limb prostheses: a review". Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology . 12 (3): 300–314. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2016.1253117 . ISSN   1748-3107. PMID   28152642.
  41. From OpenCollector's "License Zone" Archived 2008-12-05 at the Wayback Machine : GPL used by Free Model Foundry and OpenSPARC; other licenses are used by Free-IP Project, LART (the software is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), and the Hardware design is released under the MIT License), GNUBook (defunct).
  42. Thompson, C. (2011). Build it. Share it. Profit. Can open source hardware work?. Work, 10, 08.
  43. For a nearly comprehensive list of licenses, see OpenCollector's "license zone" Archived 2008-12-05 at the Wayback Machine
  44. Hardware_Isn't_Generally_Copyrightable on
  45. "The TAPR Open Hardware License" . Retrieved 16 April 2015.
  46. transcript of all comments Archived 2008-05-18 at the Wayback Machine , hosted on
  47. "CERN Open Hardware Licence". Open Hardware Repository. CERN. 2012-07-05. Archived from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2012-08-15.
  48. "Open Hardware Repository" . Retrieved 16 April 2015.
  49. "Solderpad licenses". Retrieved 2012-08-15.
  50. Definition on
  51. FAQ on "What license should I use? In general, there are two broad classes of open-source licenses: copyleft and permissive. Copyleft licenses (also referred to as "share-alike" or "viral") are those which require derivative works to be released under the same license as the original; common copyleft licenses include the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. Other copyleft licenses have been specifically designed for hardware; they include the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL) and the TAPR Open Hardware License (OHL). Permissive licenses are those which allow for proprietary (closed) derivatives; they include the FreeBSD license, the MIT license, and the Creative Commons Attribution license. Licenses that prevent commercial use are not compatible with open-source; see this question for more."
  52. "Recommended Licenses - Open Hardware Wiki". Archived from the original on 2012-03-28.
  53. Item "What license is used for OpenCores?", from FAQ, retrieved 14 January 2013
  54. FreeCores Main Page Archived 2008-12-05 at the Wayback Machine , retrieved 25 November 2008
  55. Open Hardware Foundation, main page, retrieved 25 November 2008
  56. "The Open Source Hardware Bank | Make". Make: DIY Projects and Ideas for Makers. 2009-03-05. Retrieved 2017-09-09.
  57. See "Are we going to get the 'source' for what is on the FPGA also?" in the Open Graphics Project FAQ Archived 2008-08-18 at the Wayback Machine , retrieved 25 November 2008
  58. Balloon License Archived 2008-10-19 at the Wayback Machine , from
  59. Gacek, C.; Arief, B. (January 2004). "The many meanings of open source". IEEE Software. 21 (1): 34–40. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1109/MS.2004.1259206. ISSN   0740-7459. S2CID   11727447.
  60. (1), Bonvoisin, Jérémy; (2), Thomas, Laetitia; (1), Mies, Robert; (2), Gros, Céline; (1), Stark, Rainer; (2), Samuel, Karine; (1), Jochem, Roland; (2), Boujut, Jean-François (2017). "Current state of practices in open source product development". DS 87-2 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 2: Design Processes, Design Organisation and Management, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08.2017. ISSN   2220-4342.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  61. Lessig, Lawrence (September 2006). "Free, as in Beer". Wired. 14 (9). Retrieved 2017-09-09.
  62. Benjamin Tincq (2014-11-15). "Business Models for Open Source Hardware".Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  63. 3-D Printing of Open Source Appropriate Technologies for Self-Directed Sustainable Development J. M Pearce, C. Morris Blair, K. J. Laciak, R. Andrews, A. Nosrat and I. Zelenika-Zovko, Journal of Sustainable Development, pp. 17-29 (2010)
  64. "Best Practices for Open-Source Hardware 1.0". Open Source Hardware Association. 2012-11-21. Retrieved 2017-09-09.
  65. "Halfbakery: Open Source Hardware Initiative". Archived from the original on 2008-02-24. Retrieved 2008-02-18.
  66. McAloone, Asta Fjeldsted, Gudrun Adalsteinsdottir, Thomas J. Howard and Tim (2012). "Open Source Development of Tangible Products". DS 71: Proceedings of NordDesign 2012, the 9th NordDesign Conference, Aarlborg University, Denmark. 22-24.08.2012.
  67. Open Source Product Development - The Meaning and Relevance of | Kerstin Balka | Springer. Forschungs-/Entwicklungs-/Innovations-Management. Gabler Verlag. 2011. ISBN   9783834931535.
  68. Pearce, Joshua M. 2012. "Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware." Science337 (6100): 1303– access
  69. Joshua M. Pearce,Open-Source Lab:How to Build Your Own Hardware and Reduce Research Costs, Elsevier, 2014. ISBN   9780124104624
  70. Pearce, Joshua M. (2017-03-21). "Emerging Business Models for Open Source Hardware". Journal of Open Hardware. 1 (1). doi: 10.5334/joh.4 . ISSN   2514-1708.
  71. Pearce, Joshua. "Pearce Research Group - Current Projects" . Retrieved 16 April 2015.
  72. Urban, Pawel. "Urban Lab at NTHU" . Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  73. Pearce, Joshua M. (2017). "Emerging Business Models for Open Source Hardware". Journal of Open Hardware. 1. doi: 10.5334/joh.4 .
  74. Saddlemire, Katie (14 April 2015). "What does "Open Source" mean?". littleBits. littleBits. Retrieved 26 May 2015.
  75. "Build It. Share It. Profit. Can Open Source Hardware Work?". WIRED . 2008-10-20. Retrieved 16 April 2015.
  76. Buitenhuis, A.J.; Pearce, J.M. (2012). "Open-source development of solar photovoltaic technology". Energy for Sustainable Development. 16 (3): 379–388. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2012.06.006.
  77. Byfield, Bruce. "Crowd Supply Boosts Open Hardware". Linux Magazine. Retrieved 2017-04-13.
  78. Stallman, Richard (1999-06-22). "Richard Stallman -- On "Free Hardware"". Retrieved 2016-01-14. freedom to copy software is social imperative, but freedom to copy hardware is not so important as hardware is hard to copy
  79. 1 2 Stallman, Richard (2015-03-11). "Why We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs". Wired . Retrieved 2016-01-14.
  80. Joshua M. Pearce, "The Case for Open Source Appropriate Technology", Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14, p. 425–431 (2012).
  81. 3D printing could offer developing world savings on replica lab kit - The Guardian, Friday 21 February 2014 01.59 EST