This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Gerber hardware files are not like software source files. They are like software executables, "compiled" from the hardware equivalent of source files -- the schematic and parts list. If that makes it closed source, them the Linux kernel is closed source on account of only supplying source code, not executables.
The key fact about a Gerber file is that, like an executable, it cannot be easily modified or studied. Yes, there are utilities which allow you to directly edit a Gerber just as there are utilities that allow you to patch an executable, but the usual (and by far easier) way to make a change is to modify the source/schematic and then recompile/relayout to a new executable/gerber. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a great comparison to use the analogy of the Linux kernel. Hardware is inherently different because it is less malleable; it is relatively easy to recompile the kernel but remaking hardware has a significant cost. If hardware is truly open then one use of the sources is to allow modification to existing instances of that hardware. Yes, hardware mods are like patching a binary, but the limitation on the ‘recompile’ is due to natural production cost rather than copyright restriction.
Furthermore, ask yourself this: if hardware files are so hard to do anything useful with, then why is the company restricting their availability?
If you still think Odroid is open hardware, then talk to the people who prevent projects like the Raspberry Pi from being on the open hardware lists for the same reasons.
I don't need to talk to them, because I am one of them. Something is open-source hardware if there is sufficient documentation under a suitable license so that someone who has the capability of creating hardware can create and sell a working copy of it without infringing on any patents or copyrights. You can do that with Odroid. You can't with Raspberry Pi.
How does a Gerber file "allow modification to existing instances of that hardware"? By telling you where the traces go when you can easily determine that with visual inspection and an ohmmeter? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
> the hardware isn't actually open because some parts of the design are retained by the company.[2]
PCB AutoCAD files and full schematics are available for all three of their current boards. Maybe this bit should be removed from article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.240.134.81 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears ODroid also offers HC1, HC2, and MC1. These seem to be worthy of inclusion. For example, HC1 includes SATA 3 support, the HC2 includes USB 3.0, and the MC1 overtly supports clustering... although I suspect the others do as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnet (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
