It's open source and there are two versions: industrial production and 3d printing.
I also find the mechanical way it adapts to different patients interesting: the different breathing patterns are codified by different levers in the mechanism that push the AMBU. So, the programming is done changing a piece in the device.
I'm helping lead software development for http://respira.works, another one of these emergency ventilator projects.
Our software is licensed as Apache 2. I'm not sure if the HW license is settled, but the intent is to go with a similarly-permissive license.
To preempt the big question of, how are we different from the many other orgs trying to do a similar thing: We're trying to build a ventilator that a COVID patient can be on for multiple weeks, not just as an emergency stopgap until they can get on a "real" ventilator. We believe that this would be hard with e.g. an approach based on a breather bag to build a device that's sensitive enough not to harm a patient over the course of weeks.
A few questions... Does your ventilator regulate pressure and volume? Does it need a medical oxygen supply? Does it filter the exhaled air? Does it monitor the patients breathing pattern and sync with it? Also what kind of testing has been done to date?
> Does your ventilator regulate pressure and volume? Does it need a medical oxygen supply? Does it filter the exhaled air? Does it monitor the patients breathing pattern and sync with it?
Yes to all. :)
> Also what kind of testing has been done to date?
The title is slightly misleading. The open source license (according to the linked documents) expires on 31st May 2020. What happens after that?
Feels like the open source is aimed only for the development phase, and no one else other than the authors will be able to execute large scale production
I would say calling this "open source" as it's generally understood to most here on HN is simply incorrect. This isn't open source on any of those terms.
This is simply a license granting licensees (anyone willing to agree to terms in this case) temporary rights to use the IP for COVID-19 related purposes. That license 1) ends and 2) sets fairly limited use cases allowed under the license.
If we want to relate this back to the software world, "source available" would be a closer analogue.
What about "Source Available Shareware" until May 31st 2020?
Also, will it be aproved before that date? Only the devices that are finalized before that day are covered in the licence and nobody is going to build too many of them until it is aproved for use.
> From the beginning, our intentions were clear: to ensure local production for Czech hospitals and help to release IP devices as open source as soon as possible.
I'd blame a cueless buzzword-heavy marketing team, instead of intentional fraud.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-...