2015 03 31
- "Quantifying the Value of Open Source Hardware Development"
- "Received 25 November 2014; revised 15 December 2014; accepted 25 December 2014"
- This paper creates(?) three different metrics for evaluating the cost/time saving potential of open source hardware, and then presents a case study illustrating the cost/time saving ability of open source hardware.
- FOSH is a really silly sounding acronym.
- It is exhaustively sourced (which I guess is normal for academic papers), but if you have been following these litreviews (and if you aren't Remy, why would you be), you know I like citations.
- "electrospinning novel materials" is a fantastic phrase, even if it has extremely limited applications.
- I think Creative Commons is technically a proper noun? The first paragraph has it lowercase.
- "open-source syringe pump (OSSP)" I'm not sure that really deserves its own acronym.
- "ranged from over $64,000 to over $1,000,000 for P = 1" Well, that's not a terribly specific range, is it? That's more of a guess.
- Wouldn't a whole bunch of designers be out of jobs if open source hardware took off?
- If an important open source medical device fails and someone dies, where does the liability fall?
- If the range of potential savings is so wide, can you really deem this "successfully provid[ing] three methods of quantifying the value of free and open source hardware"?
- This is a well written, well organized paper. It provides clear examples, and is (relatively) easy to follow. However, I have difficulty comprehending the vast ranges of potential savings he presents - I know there is some guess work to be done, but a range of $1,000,000 is nothing to sneeze at. I suppose I've never done anything like this, so a million may in fact be a very small range, but I wouldn't know.
3/5 <review increments>