Open-Source Hardware (OSH) and software ecosystems enable a collaborative development and manufacturing of physical artifacts. As we move towards new paradigms of production and consumption – libre software toolchains for hardware development warrant special attention. This chapter explores libre software, OSH, and software ecosystems to exemplify, illustrate, and provide food for thought to the curious reader to understand current trends in the Open-Source Hardware movement.
14.1 Introduction
Innovative approaches to hardware design and production within the framework of Fab Cities and circular economies are relevant for policy makers. Understanding the synergy between open-source software and hardware is a first step in the realization of the potential of collaborative and co-developed approaches.
The popularity of Free/Libre and Open-Source Software (FLOSS) today is evident in the industry with web servers, frameworks, and tools powering the world (Ebert, 2008). Open-Source Hardware (OSH) is inspired by FLOSS; it is gaining traction with the Maker movement (Davies, 2017) and successes such as the Arduino, RepRap 3D Printers, and numerous other Open-Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) certified projects (OSHWA, 2023b). OSH is also gaining momentum in the spirit of knowledge dissemination with the CERN Open Hardware Initiative (CERN, 2023), Open Science Hardware communities (Anon, 2017) and by numerous other publicly funded initiatives.
Anzeige
The FLOSS ecosystem for hardware development is flourishing. Many OSH projects use libre software tools for development (Cadena et al., 2018; Collins et al., 2020); yet many OSH projects still rely on proprietary tools, locking-in hardware designers to closed platforms (Correa et al., 2017; Booeshaghi et al., 2019). Little attention is devoted to the importance of libre software ecosystems for OSH, as the openness of OSH often focuses on availability of the source but not the tools which are used to develop such hardware (Bonvoisin et al., 2017).
FLOSS for hardware development offers powerful tools compatible with Fab City manifesto values (Rimmer, 2021). In times of scarcity, waste, environmental impact (Lieder & Rashid, 2016; Santato & Alarco, 2022), issues with products such as planned obsolescence (Malinauskaite & Erdem, 2021), limited rights to repair (Hernandez et al., 2020), lack of privacy, and exploitable security in hardware (Young et al., 2019; Dawson et al., 2021), may put limits on the potential of a more sustainable society, as OSH could allow for less environmental impact through collaborative circular designs and less waste through longevity-oriented support for hardware. Policy makers should consider ways to guide the public, makers, and enterprises to use or design projects that are reusable and modular for circular economies. OSH, designed and developed with FLOSS tools, will allow anyone to contribute to the common good without the need for restrictive licensing. We believe that this circular-economy challenge may be supported by both OSH and a harmonious ecosystem of OSH and libre software.
In the context of Fab Cities and circular economies, this chapter explores two questions: (1) Why is OSH important? and (2) What are libre software ecosystems for hardware?
This chapter attempts to address these questions. We introduce OSH, discuss the drawbacks of proprietary hardware, describe the OSH market environment, highlight the potential of libre software for OSH, provide a model for describing software ecosystems, and apply the model to two popular applications in the OSH community: FreeCAD and KiCAD.
Anzeige
14.2 What Is OSH and Why Does It Matter?
14.2.1 OSH Background
The FLOSS movement inspired the OSH movement, and is generally traced back to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the GNU Operating System (OS), MINIX and the Linux kernel (Raymond, 1999; Bretthauer, 2001; DeBrie & Goeschel, 2016).
OSH is defined by the OSHWA and DIN SPEC 3105-1 (Arndt et al., 2020; OSHWA, 2021) as physical artifacts whose designs are available publicly so that anyone can use, study, modify, replicate, and sell or distribute such hardware. OSH projects may be as simple as a bracket (Gaudio, 2023) or as complex as an open hardware architecture.
OSH has enabled hackerspaces, makerspaces, and other hardware enthusiast communities to tinker with hardware and popularize do-it-yourself (DIY) designs in various communication channels (Davies, 2017). However, communities are not yet aligned to what constitutes the source of such hardware projects (Bonvoisin et al., 2017) – a challenge which the DIN specification for OSH ought to address. The use of proprietary hardware is not without its drawbacks as there are numerous implications that may adversely affect users.
14.2.2 Proprietary Hardware Shortcomings
Proprietary hardware refers to physical artifacts that hold patents, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights that restrict the modification, production, or distribution of hardware. Hardware that holds restrictive terms puts limits on the freedom that users have to utilize such artifacts. OSH, as defined by licenses such as the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL) (Ayass & Serrano, 2012), may contain proprietary hardware as separate modules as long as the open parts of the hardware are available for study, reuse, modification, and distribution. However, in restrictive hardware designs, users and makers are unable to do either with such designs. These restrictions bring about similar shortcomings that exist in proprietary software.
For instance, inability to audit hardware has brought a new class of attacks on modern microprocessors in the Spectre and Meltdown incidents – flaws that have caused serious performance penalties (Prout et al., 2018). In contrast, open micro-architectures such as RISC-V may be able to support security research to mitigate side-channel attacks and improve hardware security (Gonzalez et al., 2019).
Another example is the way that Smart TVs of major vendors spy on users and pose security threats, as attackers may covertly gain control over devices (Michéle & Karpow, 2014). Smart TV users are unable to control their hardware, update or fix security flaws if manufacturer service periods expire or if device manufacturers terminate support of the firmware or provide hardware upgrades. These shortcomings may also exist in other proprietary hardware such as WiFi routers, Internet of Things (IoT) devices, printers, smart home devices, industrial control systems, surveillance cameras, medical devices, etc. …And highlight the importance of the OSH movement, where physical design transparency may support the mitigation of hard-to-find software exploitable hardware bugs, a major challenge for security specialists (Dessouky et al., 2019).
14.2.3 OSH in the Market
OSH is suitable for distribution in the market for economic gain, despite the possible misinterpretation of the ‘Open’ designation. OSH, besides ‘open’ access, also guarantees the same rights of distribution that proprietary hardware has. The CERN Open Hardware License (OHL) (Ayass & Serrano, 2012) and the OSH DIN SPEC 3105-1 (Bonvoisin et al., 2020) stipulate that OSH designs, based on open-source software definitions, state the requirements for licensing terms that grant users the fundamental rights to use, modify, share, and distribute hardware designs, including the distribution of physical artifacts for economic gain.
The success of Arduino and RepRap 3D printers demonstrate that OSH can be financially viable, even in highly competitive markets. OSH projects offer low barriers of entry, high customer loyalty (Li & Seering, 2019), high product differentiation (Hannig & Teich, 2021), and resilience against supply chain disruptions (Oberloier et al., 2022).
Despite the challenges of OSH business models, the economic impact of OSH may be quantified as in a study by the European Union (EU) that estimates the benefit between 65–95 billion Euros across all member states with a cost-benefit ratio slightly above 1:4 – where small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are by far the most active group of contributors (European Commission, 2021). Similarly, the impact by specific OSH projects may also be quantified, such as that of a magnetic resonance imaging scanner that could save healthcare systems millions per year (Moritz et al., 2019).
14.2.4 Potential of Libre Software for OSH Development
OSH can bring numerous benefits that are essential to society, especially when combined with libre software. This combination may enable a widespread participation by anyone in the hardware design process (Boujut et al., 2019), concentration of resources from industrial users to improve libre software (Andersen-Gott et al., 2012), potential elimination of complex Computer-Aided Design (CAD) exchange format converters, improvement and longevity of hardware by compatibility-oriented design, reuse of components as hardware is designed with modularity in mind (Collins et al., 2020), and urban transformation with circularly-oriented design (Buxbaum-Conradi et al., 2022).
The importance of libre software for OSH may be overlooked. OSHWA (2023a) and DIN SPEC 3105-2 offer assessment schemes to publicly verify that a given OSH design complies with their requirements. Despite the importance of the use of open-source toolchains (as we describe in this chapter), neither assessment process takes libre software for OSH into account. OSHWA does not mention any criteria for the file formats and DIN SPEC 3105-1 only requires that files are provided in their “original editable file format and in an export format that can be processed by software that is generally accessible to the recipients” (Arndt et al., 2020). Similarly, licenses such as CERN OHL, do not stipulate the use of libre software for hardware development; terms are concerned about the intricacies of available components or external materials (Ayass & Serrano, 2012).
OSH designers may decide to release project source files (e.g. CAD designs, electronic schematics, engineering files, etc.) in proprietary formats. Modern OSH licenses may not enforce that project files are in formats compatible with libre software, as there is often no stipulation about distribution of original or derivative work in compatible file formats, or whether the file formats should also be open. The availability for collaboration and reproducibility becomes dependent upon users obtaining licenses of proprietary software. Issues such as privacy (Spiegel, 2013), security (Yile, 2016), cloud migration of the software (a form of planned obsolescence) are evident in commercial software as a service (Junk & Spannbauer, 2018). Challenges in security, privacy also exist in open-source software (Rotella, 2018), but project developers have more control (Wermke et al., 2022), software remains compatible (Lundell et al., 2017), and auditable (Cowan, 2003).
For many, libre software for OSH offers an attractive alternative to the expensive software license fees and to cloud platforms that can drastically change their terms of service so that they would become practically unusable for open-source development processes. As the design process often involves both mechanical and electronic components, libre software for mechanical design and circuit design are viable alternatives. Two major libre alternatives for mechanical design are OpenSCAD and FreeCAD, the latter of which is known for its support of constructive solid modeling, boundary representation modeling, and multiple 3D design methodologies. As for electronic design, LibrePCB, FreePCB, and Fritzing are some of the options available, but KiCAD has gained traction as a replacement of proprietary software such as Eagle, due to its community, continuous support, libraries and growing ecosystem.
14.3 Understanding Libre Software Ecosystems for Hardware
OSH designers and users may employ open-source software to (1) use the hardware or (2) to work on hardware projects. In terms of hardware usage (1), the Arduino IDE started as a fork of Wiring (Severance, 2014) and now possesses a rich library selection of supported microcontrollers and sensors. Similarly, OSH machine tools, such as 3D printers or laser cutters, may rely on libre software for generating GCode commands derived from files used in 3D printing such as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) (Prusa, 2023), or in files used in laser cutting and engraving, such as Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) (Oster et al., 2011). Machine control at firmware level, for open digital fabrication machines may also use open firmware such as GRBL or Smoothie, for their operation (GRBL, 2023; The Smoothie Project, 2023).
Working on hardware projects (2) is complex. It depends on the type of hardware and the different stages in development of such physical artifacts. Design, planning, manufacturing, quality control and logistic activities (Siller et al., 2009; Anderl et al., 2018) also rely on different sets of software. Computer-based tools for Computer-Aided Design (CAD), Computer-Aided Process Planning (CAPP), Production Planning and Control (PPC), Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM), Computer-Aided Quality Control (CAQC), and Computer-Aided Inventory Management Control (CAIMC) may use a collection of different software to achieve set objectives. In proprietary software, there is a high degree of integration in the product-to-end-user design process – hardware developers can interchangeably and harmoniously integrate the processes of mechanical design with electronic design automation and simulation pipelines in one suite of software. In libre software, the integration is less apparent, users may combine different software at each of the stages of hardware development – this combination of software is what we refer to as the ecosystem of libre software.
It would be an unfathomable task to classify and analyse all possible combinations of software to support all workflows in the development of OSH at every stage. Figure 14.1 illustrates how different software ecosystems may be needed at different stages of hardware development. S = {A1…An} represent all the FLOSS available, E1…En represent a subset of software ecosystems that are used for a particular activity in hardware projects. For instance, the design and development phase would employ the subset E1 which could contain all necessary software for CAD/CAE development. Each of the phases, Ei, should also reflect the type of hardware developed, as artifacts vary in size, complexity and requirements. There may be other activities requiring different Ei for the task.
Fig. 14.1
Libre software ecosystems for hardware development
×
Workflows vary depending on the stage of hardware development, with different tasks completed by different software ecosystems. In order to describe libre software ecosystems for hardware in practice, there is yet another distinction: the possibility of different workflows W within each hardware design stage. If we consider Wi = E1…En as the different software ecosystems required for a development cycle of hardware, we can describe the different workflows for each of the tasks in OSH development. Figure 14.2 illustrates a simplified example of the workflow for the manufacturing of a 3D part. At each step in the 3D printing process, different libre software may be employed. When we combine the different workflows for 3D printing, laser cutting, and CNC Milling, as a simplification, a machine may be manufactured – such as a machine tool (e.g., Vise, Lathe) or a digital fabrication machine (e.g., laser cutter, CNC mill, 3D printer). Manufacturing of OSH is a challenge and identifying workflows to produce such machines will support ideas such as the distributed manufacturing of OSH in open production plans (Mariscal-Melgar et al., 2022).
Fig. 14.2
Manufacturing workflows for OSH production
×
14.4 FLOSS Toolchains for Hardware: Examples
Figure 14.1 helps abstract internal ecosystems for software used in the different phases of hardware development. Let us consider the example of FreeCAD in Fig. 14.3, a parametric CAD application. On a lower layer of abstraction, there are different libraries and dependencies that make up the software. FreeCAD is based on a CAD kernel that provides the underlying structure and basic set of functions to create parametric shapes. The scene renderer displays them, the graphical user interface (GUI) provides a user interface and other dependencies deal with intricacies of the build-in features. Within the FreeCAD ecosystem, there are macros and scripts that expand software functionalities, external libraries in the form of generic 3D parts and add-on workbenches which may be installed separately. Additionally, there are complementary software, such as KiCAD, that, depending on the use case, may interact with FreeCAD for a particular task (e.g., generation of 3D models of circuit boards). All these components constitute FreeCAD’s software ecosystem.
Fig. 14.3
Simplified FreeCAD software ecosystem
×
KiCAD is one of the complementary software that interacts with FreeCAD for the integration and development of OSH artifacts. KiCAD electronic design automation (EDA) tools facilitate the design of electrical schematics, the routing of printed circuit boards (PCBs) and the creation of Gerber files, a standard used in the industry for the manufacturing of PCBs. Figure 14.4 describes the electronic design ecosystem for KiCAD, the software is made of four major components: (1) the schematics editor, (2) the PCB editor, (3) the GERBER Viewer and the (4) project manager. Each of these components depend on local sources and external libraries to provide the functionality of the KiCAD GUI. Complementary software are software tools that interact indirectly with KiCAD to provide more functionality. FlatCAM is useful in the production development stage of PCBs for milling, LTspice and GNUCap for simulation, OpenRoad for layout implementation and FreeCAD for the integration of the PCB physical representation into an overall OSH design.
Fig. 14.4
Simplified KiCAD software ecosystem
×
14.5 Libre Software Toolchains: Discussion
These two examples of ecosystems should provide the reader with an overview of how varied and complex libre software ecosystems are and showcase the need that, for every new tooling, software developers should consider the ecosystem first – perhaps with a practical hardware-development-focused approach for the benefit of projects that rely on libre software tools to achieve their aims.
FreeCAD and KiCAD provide a lot of functionality, versatility, and modularity in their respective ecosystems. However, when compared to closed source solutions, such as the combo of commercial CAD/CAM/CAE tools, the ecosystem is less seamless. Commercial companies can leverage their position in the market with dependable development teams to target the industry and integrate solutions, all in a single package. However, those solutions are driven by the company’s choices, as effective costs for features may rise as decisions may be purely market-driven, in contrast to constant availability of features in libre software. Proprietary software also suffers from data interchange problems if customers want to use other tools or import files in other formats, this practice allows for a more successful lock-in effect. We refer to this type of software as competition-driven software, as it relies on market-driven forces for survival (i.e., customers), whereas FLOSS alternatives may or may not rely on market forces for survival but also on collaboration and adoption for survival.
In collaborative-driven libre software, the focus is on the interoperability of software and solving of specific needs, while also providing tools for extensibility. Applications are modular, interchangeable, flexible to change and provide several options to users as exemplified by the rich ecosystems of FreeCAD and KiCAD in Sect. 14.4. The focus of FLOSS tools is that of planned perpetuity instead of planned obsolescence. Software is there to serve the users’ needs, not to extract economic value from them.
There is a need to further improve libre software ecosystems, such as FreeCAD and KiCAD. Our examples demonstrate the complexity of these ecosystems, and the simplifications are there to guide the unfamiliar reader. Nevertheless, there is still a need for further work on a more effective integration of libre software, creating toolchains that provide users with experiences less fragmented and more harmonious for different workflows.
The OSH community, software developers, researchers, and policy makers could continue to support the creation of a more harmonious ecosystem of libre software for OSH. The next steps for the OSH community are to spread awareness of the vast ecosystem of libre software available for the creation of projects in open formats to ensure the projects’ longevity. Software developers involved with libre software for hardware should continue their work, focusing on understanding practitioners’ workflows and the toolchains needed for different applications, ranging from DIY and prototyping to industrial use-cases. Researchers could support the efforts by mapping out workflows and the different toolchains missing in different fields. Policy makers could support the OSH movement further by funding, as OSH adds value to the economy and aligns with climate, self-sufficiency, and circular economy objectives.
14.6 Concluding Remarks
This chapter provided an exploratory overview of OSH by describing the landscape of OSH and suggesting a way to understand and exemplify libre software ecosystems that are used to develop such hardware. FLOSS is usually financed through a combination of donations, grants, crowdfunding, dual licensing, commercial support, and particularly voluntary contributions. FLOSS toolchains for hardware are lacking, so the underlying message is that FLOSS for OSH is worth the support from policy makers (e.g., via dedicated funding). FLOSS for OSH development offers unique benefits to users and the economy. Despite some of the shortcomings of FLOSS tools for hardware, OSH designers should consider supporting FLOSS ecosystems by using them and providing feedback to developers.
Future research could focus on mapping different engineering workflows, to identify gaps in libre software. Additionally, it would be interesting to explore how leading commercial software companies may benefit from FLOSS, for instance, by adopting more common-standards, supporting universal CAD kernels, or improving file-format compatibility and interoperability.
In the context of circular economies, and new paradigms of production and consumption, it is necessary to re-think how society can design and produce products collaboratively with a focus on less waste and reuse. Is OSH one of the answers to the sustainability problem? Perhaps it is a combination of both, since libre software for open-source hardware in a more harmonious ecosystem.
Open Access Dieses Kapitel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de) veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden.
Die in diesem Kapitel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen.
