huh? the only thing closed is the bootloader, which is ok-ish I think. Everything else in the toolchain is open source. Paul is a terrific guy and provides great support in the forums.
You can find the schematics, gerber files, etc in the webpage as well. What part would you like to be open source specifically?
I think releasing the source code and open-source are 2 different things. Paul is an amazing guy, I absolutely cannot argue - he is super cool.
Open-source means I have the license to use it in ways that are defined in an agreement outlined in the specific open source license (say MIT license). Paul provides a bunch of stuff for their users, but I cannot copy his designs and bootloader (which is closed) in a commercial project without taking on liability.
The problem is a philosophical one as well - Half-open or "visible source" projects exploit benefits of the open-source community (engagement, contributions, feedback, etc.) without giving anything back to the community (license to reproduce freely). I have a problem with this. Either make something completely closed source (totally fine) or make it completely open source. Another example is Numworks calculator ("visible source" under CC license, wtf is wrong with these people) : https://github.com/numworks/epsilon/issues/38
The Numworks guys are just getting free labor which is all the enthusiasts working on the code without paying anything back to the community! Completely abhorrent behavior and should be exposed.
also, the design is encouraged to be used in commercial projects. Paul even sells the bootloader chip programmed for your own designs. There’s a specific section in the forum for those use cases.
Do I get a license for hardware schematics and board layout and other aspects besides the bootloader? Where can I find a license in writing? If a license is not provided, I can't do anything with it besides hobby work.
Please note, I am not demanding an open-source license. Closed source projects are totally fine, I feel absolutely no entitlement to get stuff for free. I am just pointing out projects that are closed-source but disguised as open-source, thereby taking advantage of the hobbyist community. Paul may be a cool guy, but objectively that doesn't change anything.
True, board layouts aren't either, forgot about that. The circuit itself can't be copyrighted, so you do not need a license to make your own board with the same components.
I personally quite like the approach of using the bootloader chip as light DRM: The majority of the value is in software you can freely use, with licenses provided. Prototyping with a Teensy and then making a product using the same parts and the libraries, not a problem. Just if you want to provide the same easy dev-board experience you need the bootloader chip (which you can buy and use for your own design) or invest your own development of an alternative.
Yep, I really like how the bootloader works - upgrades are drag and drop. I'll write to Paul if he is open for selling the bootloader license to me for commercial use. I am sure we can come to an agreement.
That's true, at some point in the abstraction layers from Teensy to the silicon atoms, the concept of "open-source" disintegrates. But to clarify, I am mainly concerned with the top layer - gerber files, schematics, bootloader, etc.