new to the board, but thought I'd say hello.
Hi Andre, thanks for jumping in. As I'm sure you've noted, we can be a tough crowd.
I think a couple of introductions are in order. cheapracer, who immediately trashed you for your fame and your aesthetics, is developing an inexpensive Atomish kit car in China, so don't take his "overpriced" and "POS" and "ugly" comments as typical of the LocostUSA membership. And then there's me, and I make and sell Locost components and am attempting to document my Locost-based 100 mpg car as open source, so I've got my own ideas of what Open Source should be. But only a small number of us have business interests in the DIY sports car industry (stiggy, KB58) and the rest have no financial axe to grind.
just wanted to clarify that this project has nothing to do with reynard, though it will build on the experience I gained in designing, testing, racing and road registering the inverter.
That was unclear in the OP's link...and it's unclear in the thread title too...but that's not your fault. I'll edit my first post immediately, from "Very cool car, however, and it's being built by folks well qualified to pull it off" to "Very cool car, however, and it's being built by a guy who is well qualified to pull it off." Or maybe I'll use "developed" instead of "built."
On to my Open Source gripe. Primarily it was a knee-jerk (or maybe even just "jerk") response to "ANDRE cars are race winning, road legal, innovative and Open Source" which are the first words on your web site. The OS Hardware license you link to says...
>You may distribute products you make to third parties, if you either include the documentation on
>which the product is based, or make it available without charge for at least three years to anyone
>who requests it.
...and yet the "...inverter is currently only built to order", so I jumped to the conclusion that it wasn't open source. I'll drop you a line requesting documentation, and if it arrives I'll apologize for my assumption.
I wish there was some simple way of saying something is being developed for eventual release as Open Source, but I don't think businesses should say something <is> open source before the documentation is available. If you google <open source car> you'll find pages of outfits claiming opensourciness, when the reality is often the opposite--sometimes open source is declared as an eventual goal (but there's no timeline) and sometimes it's just bullbleep, but sometimes inquiries for source information are rejected as attempts to rip off trade secrets. Huh? Which one is it, open source or proprietary? Can't be both.
I feel I should explain why I am offering the cars for sale with plans initially, then fully open source later.
Andre, your reasons for not OS'ing the OS7.0 yet are excellent, and I'm in full agreement. Open sourcing isn't crowd sourcing. Nevertheless, calling yourself The First when you haven't done it yet is presumptuous, though if you qualify it sufficiently ("the first sportscar to be designed, tested, released and then using an open source approach, community developed, locally manufactured and sold") you're probably going to be right.