I had a look and this project is most definitely not open source. Nobody should be making that claim.
Changing the HN headline to soften the project's own bombastic claim isn't really the point of the argument. It would bhe better to highlight any project that is actually working on open source microscopy of which there are many. Flagged
anfractuosity 2 days ago [-]
The hardware itself doesn't appear to be open though? - "Blueprints are available on case by case basis"
lazyhalide 2 days ago [-]
It's not, and the process is awful. To get access to blueprints or hardware specifications you need to provide proof of academic credentials and affiliation with a relevant research project.
They really shouldn't be calling it an open-source anything.
Nanographs, a company out of Portland, is probably a better source of open microscope information (https://www.nanographs.io/).
anfractuosity 2 days ago [-]
Thanks for the link, not come across that before.
2 days ago [-]
dvh 2 days ago [-]
Don't these things require like beryllium window and low background steel?
dang 2 days ago [-]
[stub for offtopicness]
(we changed 'open source' to 'source available' in the title above)
dekhn 2 days ago [-]
I flagged this because it appears the system is not actually open-source using the common understanding of the term.
amacbride 2 days ago [-]
“At this point, private individuals will not be able to obtain licences to the NanoMi platform.”
Does “open source” have a different meaning in Canadian?
observationist 2 days ago [-]
It looks to me like they're doing some sort of legal technicality in order to qualify for funding of some sort.
This appears to be F tier legal fuckery, not open source at all.
Rendered at 02:04:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Changing the HN headline to soften the project's own bombastic claim isn't really the point of the argument. It would bhe better to highlight any project that is actually working on open source microscopy of which there are many. Flagged
They really shouldn't be calling it an open-source anything.
Nanographs, a company out of Portland, is probably a better source of open microscope information (https://www.nanographs.io/).
(we changed 'open source' to 'source available' in the title above)
Does “open source” have a different meaning in Canadian?
This appears to be F tier legal fuckery, not open source at all.