It occurred to me earlier that we don't have an "official" definition of a clone of anything. For switches, I happen to agree with the definition of Alps clone that he wrote on the wiki (under Category:Clones of Alps CM switches), so that is what I've used ever since, but it's not an official definition, arguably both helpful and unhelpful depending on your perspective on classification.
However, there's no single agreed-upon definition of a clone of anything, so I've written up a summary of it here:
[wiki]Clone[/wiki]
Definitions of "clone"
-
Daniel Beardsmore
- Location: Hertfordshire, England
- Main keyboard: Filco Majestouch 1 (home)/Poker II backlit (work)
- Main mouse: MS IMO 1.1
- Favorite switch: Probably not whatever I wrote here
- DT Pro Member: -
- Contact:
-
HaaTa
- Master Kiibohd Hunter
- Location: San Jose, California, USA
- Main keyboard: Depends the day
- Main mouse: CST L-TracX
- Favorite switch: Fujitsu Leaf Spring/Topre/BS/Super Alps
- DT Pro Member: 0006
- Contact:
Yeah, I'd agree that we use the term "clone" quite freely...
I don't really use it a lot, but it makes sense to use. My personal criteria for it's use:
Switches that are "inspired" or compatible Blue NEC switches for example, are not really clones (pretty sure at least).
I don't really use it a lot, but it makes sense to use. My personal criteria for it's use:
- Clearly copied (non-licensed)
- Derived/licensed (mainly just a logo change)
- Clearly copied + modified
- Derived + modified
Switches that are "inspired" or compatible Blue NEC switches for example, are not really clones (pretty sure at least).