[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29

[malcolm stanley]

*How are businesses freed from liability concerns? *

I am not saying that the use of open source enables freedom from liability;
I am saying that in commercial enterprise the use of open source IS ONLY
ENABLED by freedom from liability concerns, and that this enabling freedom
unlocks the many benefits of open source, which are otherwise unavailable
and cannot be accessed...
so a productive use of a certification would be to signal that the open
source contents are free from litigation concern, if that were possible.

*And why can business produce the designs but individuals can't?  Don't
businesses get started by individuals?*
*
*
perhaps we are mixing commercial and non-commercial development here, or
expert versus non-expert.
I am perhaps overgeneralizing to think that individuals non-commercially
trying their hands at open source hardware are more likely to be non-expert
and lack the resources required to quickly gain expertise, when compared to
individuals or companies commercially doing so.
*
*






_________________________________________
malcolm stanley

google.voice:  215.821.6252
Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
twitter / linkedin: amstanley
Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
_________________________________________


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:37 PM, malcolm stanley wrote:
>
> many businesses *could* produce the designs, but may gain efficiencies and
> other benefits from not having to.
> This is enabled by freedom from liability concerns.
>
>
> How are businesses freed from liability concerns?  I can tell you that, as
> a small business owner, they keep me awake at night.  And I own a company
> that *does* produce its designs openly. So I don't know where your argument
> is coming from there.
>
> And why can business produce the designs but individuals can't?  Don't
> businesses get started by individuals?
>
>
> so no, I argue they are not the same as one is a benefit probably bounded
> by capability, while the other is a benefit probably bounded by perceived
> risk.
>
>
> Capability and risk always go hand in hand.
>
> t.
>
>
> _________________________________________
> malcolm stanley
>
> google.voice:  215.821.6252
> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
> _________________________________________
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And that's the same need for businesses, no?
>>
>> t.
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:34 PM, malcolm stanley wrote:
>>
>> A primary need of individuals is access to designs and other intellectual
>> property which they are not capable of producing on their own, to use as a
>> catalyst and a crutch for their own activities.
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> malcolm stanley
>>
>> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>> _________________________________________
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you clarify this a bit Matt?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Matt Maier wrote:
>>>
>>> For one standard to catch on it would have to be valuable to an awful
>>> lot of different entities with different goals and different contexts. I
>>> suspect that's not going to happen. Why? Because...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's clear that the needs of businesses are different than the needs of
>>>> individuals, and I think most of the resultant thread(s) are on their way
>>>> to establishing what businesses can do.
>>>>
>>>> Cameron
>>>>
>>> ...of this question. We've already identified two groups with obviously
>>> different needs. Businesses have to pull in at least enough money to cover
>>> their costs and risks; individuals don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> What *do* individuals need?  The minute you  start selling something,
>>> you face the same risks and liabilities and opportunities as any other
>>> business,  Even if you put something out there publicly for someone else to
>>> use, you face the liabilities, unless you state the conditions under which
>>> you approve use of your design, and the limit of your responsibilities for
>>> that use.
>>>
>>> Ideally, I'd like to see a definition *and* legal instruments that
>>> support individuals who choose to do either of these things (publish and
>>> sell, or publish and not sell), so that they have access to the same
>>> privileges and protections as any size business.
>>>
>>> The need to generate a certain level of profit has to override other
>>> priorities. If it doesn't the business will simply disappear. If being
>>> "totally open" conflicts with "minimally profitable" then profit will have
>>> to win. Individuals can try to coerce and encourage businesses to be as
>>> open as possible, but at the end of the day their priorities are
>>> fundamentally different.
>>>
>>>
>>> So what are individuals' priorities and needs in an OSHW definition?
>>> What will an individual use it for, other than debate?
>>>
>>> t.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130228/fe8f6c0a/attachment-0001.html>