Open source mechanical Swiss watch movement
openmovement.org
openmovement.org
My name, address etc has value. So this is not free.
Thumbs up however for creating this movement.
"The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term."
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
It means the source is available, and you can use it under some very permissive terms, and there is no barrier to access.
This is like how a "free" game used to mean actually free, but now free means "with IAP and ads", so now we don't have a single word to just mean "free as in beer" for games. So now I can't tell someone my hobby project is just plain free, I have to explain "no I don't mean full of bullshit, I mean free".
FWIW I agree, it's a violation of our standard idea of open source.
Tangentially, watchmaking is cool, and there are many free/open plans in various mechanical and 3D printing type communities.
Also, I feel like sharing this link which shows this guy's shop, it's not huge or complex, and makes the art of watchmaking seem approachable. Just need an old pantograph milling machine and a few other things https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/05/portrait-masahiro-kikuno-ja...
Apologies to Dr Nick
Free release of old game to promote new game (lots of these)
Free on steam / epic / origin (to get new users)
Free in a cereal box (chex quest anyone)
Free because the author doesn't want to sell it anymore but wants people to play it
Free because it's open source now AND the assets are included (like ur quan masters)
Free because its a hobby (like https://thedarkmod.com/ or 0 A.D. or other 'real' games that are hobbies)
Lots of games have been free as in beer some time or other
and several GNU projects, too, had the source to future releases only accessible to approved members and closed circles.
rms was very clear that the license meant: once you got the tech, you had the right to also get the source. If that meant to pay for the tech, that was perfectly fine. freedom. not free beer.
> Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
neither gpl forces you to put your software source to a public server.
all it says is: if I give you binaries under gpl, and only then, I also have to give you the source, and you then have the right to modify and redistribute, under the same terms.
if I give the binaries to you under gpl 3, then in addition I have to provide you with tools to install your updated software into your specific drm protected device (and you're explicitly good wrt parents I may hold)
neither gpl 2 not gpl 3 anywhere talk about making the source code (or the software) available to anybody free of charge.
edit: the key is 'corresponding', with paragraph 3 being about software distribution. 'any third oarty' in the quoted clause b of paragraph 3 references your recipients of the software, not anybody and their neighbor.
the meaning is: if you give someone the software, you also give them the source.
so you buy $PRINTER, comes with a driver, you also get the source.
and with secure boot, you also get a way to update it in the device.
if there is no device, like with a compiler, you get some binaries, and the source. which enables you to fix the binaries.
the idea behind it was: no lock-in, and the right to repair and evolve what you own. freedom.
the anecdote for the origin of software freedom 'enforcement' and protection indeed was a printer:
They say that "All published plans are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0).", so anyone who gets the plans can definitely redistribute them (put them in a GitHub repo or something).
The engineering is already there as Chinese factories are cranking out affordable 4Hz movements, it's just that the finishing and assembly still leave some to be desired (according to random YouTube reviews and forumites at least). This isn't a knock on Chinese factories by the way - they do FANTASTIC work for the money (and I'd love to add a PT5000-powered piece to my modest collection) but they just aren't on the same level as their Japanese/German/Swiss counterparts.
Especially with the Chinese watches, they often come from the factory with less-than-perfect attunement. Watch repairmen will take a watch like this, clean everything, maybe replace a bearing or two, use high quality lubricant, possibly even swap a gear or so if it needs it.
They can also take an older mechanical in pretty bad shape and restore it to health. There's a point of no return for any mechanical device, of course.
That falls within the bounds of accuracy required of a Swiss certified mechanical chronometer (that is to say, a clock accurate enough for marine celestial navigation) and is pretty good.
As a marine engineer I have a genuine and real appreciation of mechanical chronometers, though any working watch/clock I use will always be quartz as for accuracy and price, nothing else comes close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COSC
[I made a similar comment further down.]
As other have notes though losing ~4 seconds a day is pretty accurate all things considered. Seiko's 3Hz movements can gain or lose _half a minute_ a day and still be considered within spec.
It's an awesome look into the watchmaking craft of the 20th century. Its explanation of bearings finally made me understand why "sapphire" was such a thing.
Sapphire/ruby in really hard so tends not to wear.
You can also lap sapphire more accurately because it is so hard.
And interesting aside is that the sapphire cups are supposed to hold oil so that the metal pin end kind of "floats"--but not too much and not too little.
It's remarkable to see something like a mechanical watch that was the end result of a century of gradual engineering improvements.
Here's a randomly Googled article: https://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/openmovement-aims-to-...
That said, the "OMxx" moniker reminds me more of diesel engines... and following from that thought, in the automotive world there is a huge aftermarket of parts that were clearly copies/derived from the originals, so I think "open source" applied to a physical object has a somewhat strange connotation: "open source" as a concept originated because software is licensed and not sold, but physical objects are usually sold, not licensed.
Even starting from an ETA, there are improvements and variants that can be made. (For example, some Chinese clones of the 7750 added a safety mechanism to the date's quick adjust mechanism. It's a really simple and elegant design change, too.) The open source aspect of this project isn't just that there's a movement, but that there's a development process. Or that's what they say, anyway!
Also, pretty much every non-ETA/Sellita movement in the cheaper-than-Rolex market is just about marketing. The movement offers nothing of interest to buyers if it's just some tweaked CAD files of a 2892, because those buyers would just get an SW-300, which is the same thing [1] with better reliability.
[1] Or not the same thing; there are probably differences just like with the SW-200, but everybody in the market will think that way.