[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

Tom Igoe tom.igoe at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 11:58:03 UTC 2013

On the subject of logo use and licensing, I agree with Marco that OSHW is a brand, and needs to be defended as such if it's going to gain any respect or authority. I think that means it needs a license with terms on what constitutes appropriate use. That doesn't mean the license has to be charged for in all cases, however.

On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:54 AM, David A. Mellis wrote:

> - How do I or will OSHWA approach a company who has the open source hw logo on their boards but no files?
> This seems like something OSHWA should do, although I'm not sure what the best approach would be.

What exactly should OSHWA do, though?  I'd say contact the company that's not in compliance and ask them to cease using the logo.

On Feb 27, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Cameron Adamez wrote:

> What ramifications does this rigamarole have for individuals, hobbyists, students, artists, etc? 
> Certifications are great but if using the logo means that you have to pay someone to use this, even OSHWA, it seems counter-intuitive.
> Also, does this mean that simply having schematics and CAD files on a website is not sufficient?

This is a case where licensing a very nominal fee might be appropriate.  

On Feb 27, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Alicia Gibb wrote:

> - Can I directly copy open source hardware (sans trademark), the oshw definition says 'yes', but articles on oshw have a resounding 'no'.
> I think if we're really about being open, this should actually be okay - think of all the open source code that gets copied and pasted directly (with attribution of course).

This would invalidate the trademark, I think, if OSHWA didn't defend it, but I could be wrong.  Wendy or someone with more legal experience should weigh in here.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130228/f0ff75bd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list