Free RoboticsPaul Fitzpatrick

Outline

The iCub: a Free Robot that costs €200,000 Freedom Defined: the OSHW definition How does the iCub stack up? Other open hardware projects

∗ Arduino, RepRap, Global Village Construction Set Patents and copyright How roboticists and OSHW can help each other

Talk is personal opinion, not that of IIT or Robot Rebuilt

iCubiCub

http://icub.org

About the iCub

Scale: 4-year old infant 53 degrees of freedom (7 per arm, 9 per hand,

6 in head, 3 in torso, 6 per leg) Off-board power, computation; on-board PC104

card, micro-controllers Tendon driven joints for shoulder, hand Stereo cameras, microphones, force/torque

sensors, gyros V1.2: sensorized fingertips, palms (108 taxels)

iCubs

Free?

You can get one built∗ €200,000 (plus customs etc)∗ 21-23 iCubs built so far

Free software∗ Publicly archived; OSI-approved license (LGPL)

Free hardware designs∗ Publicly archived; OSI-approved license (GPL)

License approved for software, not hardware Lots of discussions going on about how to build good free

licenses for hardware

Why freedom helps Full-body humanoids are hugely complicated and

expensive to develop An open process is an enormous simplifier

∗ Secrecy is lossy∗ Hard to do across loosely collaborating institutions∗ Secrecy is complicated, bureaucratic∗ Secrecy is costly

For loose collaborations across space and time, an open process wins hands-down

Free licenses useful for setting trusted ground rules

Hardware vs software

Good, well-understood free licenses exist for software∗ Copyright based

The same is not true for hardware∗ Often people borrow software or media licenses∗ But law related to hardware is very different

e.g. regulated by patents, not copyright Different types of hardware have different legal issues

A lot of thinking about this happening right now∗ e.g. TAPR Open Hardware License

OSHW definition Open Source Hardware Statement of Principles and

Definition is under development by community∗ http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW

Not a license. A standard by which to evaluate licenses. Modeled after the Debian Free Software Guidelines. New, still being hammered out (v1.0 was released Feb. 2011) “Open Source Hardware (OSHW) is:

∗ a term for tangible artifacts – machines, devices, or other physical things –

∗ whose design has been released to the public in such a way that anyone can make, modify, distribute, and use those things.”

OSHW terms (v1.0)

Documentation∗ Design files must be released∗ In preferred format for making changes, e.g. original CAD

Scope∗ Must be clear what portion of design is covered by license

Necessary software∗ Any software required for operation must be released under

OSI-approved license, or specified well for implementation by others

Derived works∗ Allow: manufacture, sale, distribution under same license, use,

modification of designs and products built from them, etc.

OSHW terms (v1.0)

Free redistribution∗ No restriction or royalty or fee for selling or giving

away the designs or modified versions of designs Attribution

∗ May be required; change in branding for modified versions may be required

No discrimination∗ Against persons or groups∗ Against fields of endeavor

OSHW terms (v1.0)

Distribution of license∗ Rights granted are automatically extended to

recipient when the work is redistributed Not specific to product

∗ Individual parts of a design can be used and distributed without grief

No restriction on other hardware or software∗ e.g. can't insist hardware be used only with free

software Technology neutral

So is the iCub free?

Yes! Maybe!∗ GPL-licensed, and GPL meets spirit of OSHW...∗ … depending on how you read it. Needs a rewrite for

hardware (TAPR, Hardware Design Public License v0.04) A bit like free software a decade ago

∗ Good faith effort: have CAD files, layouts, BOM, wiki, making-of videos, …

∗ More importantly, public repository is used internally∗ But it takes a lot of documentation to build a humanoid!∗ But is everything there? Probably not. And it is messy.

Needs pressure from 3rd-party implementors Also: v1.2 has a patent application on tactile skin

Benefits?

Better institutional memory∗ Information made public is archived, duplicated,

indexed by search engines∗ Secrets are expensive, and get lost∗ Clearly better for the next grad student or contractor

that shows up Confidence booster for users

∗ Can't be canceled like Aibo+Qrio∗ Collaborators vs consumers

Defensive publication

Potential costs?

Missed revenue∗ Others can scoop up and exploit work∗ Copyright-based license can be worked around

Mistakes are public∗ Published material needs vigilance to keep third-

party, non-free material out∗ iCub developers may get away with mistakes a

juicier target might not

PR2PR2

WillowGarage

Free Software, Closed Hardware

$400,000 ($280,000 with open-source-contributor discount)

Free, open-source software = ROS etc Hardware is not open

∗ (Many bloggers are confused about this)∗ “Modularity” specification not open

No sharing information off-premises, full license requires signature and approving counter-signature from Willow.

∗ CAD, BOM etc. not freely available

ArduinoArduino

Smart Projects,Italy

Arduino $30 microcontroller board Technically not novel

∗ But very easy to use by non-engineers, great doc, videos

∗ Everything that can be free and open, is (but name reserved)

∗ Reference design license: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5

Massively popular Lots of copies, derivatives Copyright-based licensing is

being respected, emulated

BeagleboardBeagleboardTexas Instruments

Digi-Key

RepRapRepRap

reprap.org

RepRap

Home-brew 3D printer GPL license Self-replication goal

∗ Status: “Mendel” version makes 50% of own parts (not counting fasteners)

Still needs plenty of “vitamins” (parts not made by RepRap)

RepRap family Makerbot and other

companies sell 3D printers (or printer kits) based on RepRap

$1300 for thing-o-matic kit GPL'd

∗ Copyright-based licensing of RepRap is being respected, emulated

Thingiverse community for sharing designs

Sometimes used for prototyping before sending to service e.g. Shapeways to build part in desired material

Global Village Construction Set

CEB Press

Building material from compressed earth Buy: $8000. Designs: Creative Commons by-sa-3.0

Arduino inside

RepRap inside (plans)

Colliding on thingiverse e.g. thing:7291

Signs of a toolchain...

But is it on a firm foundation?

OSHW caveat

“In promoting Open Hardware, it is important not to unintentionally deceive designers regarding the extent to which their licenses actually can control their designs. Under U.S. law, and law in many other places, copyright does not apply to electronic designs. Patents do. The result is that an Open Hardware license can in general be used to restrict the plans but probably not the manufactured devices or even restatements of the same design that are not textual copies of the original.”

Stallman on hardware

Stallman = head of Free Software Foundation Doesn't see need for “Free Hardware”, since

copying hardware is expensive (1999 article)∗ [my interpretation] The opportunity cost (to society)

of prohibiting cheap things is high. The opportunity cost of prohibiting expensive things is low.

Flags problem with patents∗ Expensive to obtain (copyright is free)∗ Work differently to copyrights, different legal world∗ “Copyleft” hack has no clear equivalent

Patents

The original “open-source”∗ Document your invention thoroughly

How does Kinect work? Read PrimeSense's patent∗ In return, get a monopoly on it

Duration: generally 20 years Idea: promise of this reward motivates inventors

Pre-expiration, patent limits others∗ Increases costs, complexity

Post-expiration, patent helps others∗ Well-documented invention in the public domain

Patents + OSHW

Recent patents can inhibit OSHW Expired patents can stimulate OSHW Patents and OSHW could co-exist

∗ Closed components within open hardware is normal∗ Just another type of “vitamin”

Vitamin = part that can't be made in free toolchain For whatever reason, technological or legal

tactiletactiletrianglestriangles

IIT / Universityof Genova

iCub tactile triangles

Patent pending on iCub component∗ “tactile triangle” invention patented∗ “tactile triangle” design doc available under GPL

What does this mean?∗ Giorgio Metta's thoughts:

“with the patent of the skin sensor placement, the idea of the triangular allocation becomes exclusively owned by IIT/Unige (which can be exploited or licensed openly)”

“... a specific instantiation (e.g. the PCB design and corresponding software) can still be under GPL without affecting the patent.”

Not sure about whether this actually will work out

“Father of iCub”One of patent holders

Dual-licensing

A classic Free Software business model. Goes like this: ∗ Company A offers software freely under GPL or similar∗ Happy community of users develop, software becomes well

known∗ Company B uses software in a product∗ Company B wants to ship product without offering source

code...∗ Need to pay Company A for a license that allows that

With patent, hardware version of this business may be possible

Without patent, Company B could just redraft designs and work around copyright

Work in progress

How to do this right is not clear Borrowing software licenses is a hack There's a whole bunch of law applying to

different kinds of hardware∗ Lots of nuances∗ Country-by-country issues

Not much precedent yet∗ (although open hardware goes way back, before

software)

AdafruitAdafruittalk at:foo campeast 2010

Reducing price of free hardware

Need better compilers∗ Need better, cheaper robots for assembly tasks∗ Need to rebuild robots and tools of all sorts for

“buildability” (Yes, this is circular – that's what makes it fun to do)

Need cheaper software ∗ Expensive, proprietary software dominates much of

design toolchain (like early software days)∗ Need folks with hardware+software skills (e.g.

roboticists) to liberate the toolchain

Benefits for robotics researchers

Lots of talk about standard robot platforms for research∗ Ok for some areas, e.g. navigation∗ But maybe premature for others, e.g. manipulation

Need to compress the time and cost for creating new hardware into a shorter part of a grad student's life-cycle∗ If the work of this generation of students is

liberated, it benefits the next generation in ways you cannot anticipate

Plus: summer school in Italy

““VVV11”VVV11”