Join the Conversation


  1. I don’t want to be the one who’s complaining all the time.. but to me it looks more like a “brOken hardware” logo with the missing gear tooth :)

    1. Best way to protect your “open” design is by leaving out one tooth in the gear. This is the Microsoft approach to open standards.

      I agree that the wrong logo won the competition. When I voted, my favorite was ahead (I forget which one it was), but somehow my horse lost the race in the end. :-(

      1. Oh yeah, I had my money on the copyleft chip, which came in second.

        I considered the Open Lock v2, but that looked too much like a UI element that should have a function when clicked, rather than a logo that would represent a broader concept.

    1. Hi CBX – I was unable to download it to include in the roundup. Could you please post again, or maybe in the forum?


  2. Interesting logo .. so how is it now wrt the one … can “anyone” put this logo on his board if he publishes the sch/pcb/fw with some open source licence?

  3. Hi everybody,

    Open Hardware logo competition is finished, but result makes me (and as I suppose, not only me but a lot of people with proper taste) hm… a bit oppress. So I peen my (as people name it) “copyleft” logo (which is due to unforeseen entropy fluctuations just 70 votes less) up and would like to share with community.


    here is Eagle library (in vector, single and text version)

    here is micro-guide

    and graphics sources

    please, feel free to use :)

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

    1. Hi Dmitry,

      Thank you! I almost suggested that I would use your logo instead of the ‘winner’ if I ever release an open hardware design. Seems like people should be free to choose their own favorite. Who knows, maybe more actual designers will choose your images and it will become the de-facto standard.

      I have to say again, your logo just looks so perfect!


      1. Agreed, very nice. We’d use it (with credit in the library) if it were CC-0, but it can’t be used for our projects because it is non-commercial I guess.

  4. yep. that obviously my mistake. I misinterpreted the wording of Non-Commercial. Of course it should be Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.