[Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness

[Tom Igoe]

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>