[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 15

Tom Igoe tom.igoe at gmail.com
Fri Mar 1 12:30:15 UTC 2013

I'm hoping what will come of the discussion is what are legit things for oshwa to tackle, what use it can be to its constituents, and how the oshw definition can be of use in practice. None of those things are clear to me. Though Marco's answers about idsa have been the most useful and instructive for me so far. And it seems we have a big divide in terms of what practice means, for individuals vs. companies.

Nathan Seidle <nathan at sparkfun.com> wrote:

>Hi Devlin - (good to hear from you! It's been a long time!) To speak to
>FCC problem and to use Marco Perry's words from the open hardware
>'those are business problems' and not a valid OSHW 'what if...' Someone
>copying an FCC ID is the same for both open and closed designs. FCC IDs
>assigned to the specific applicant. Copying an ID is an offense no
>the type of open/closed widget.
>To Everyone - Let's try to stay away from brainstorming all the ways a
>product could get us sued/arrested/killed. If we don't, we will never
>the house. As a community we should balance (as intelligently as we
>the risk of bad things happening against the good that will come from
>sharing and learning from OSHW.
>I am enthralled by this discussion but what should come of it? Topics
>add to the FAQ? We need to consolidate the communities' feelings into
>place so that we do not repeat the same debates.
>Nathan Seidle
>CEO, SparkFun Electronics Inc
>Boulder, CO
>Phone : 1-303-284-0979
>Fax : 1-303-443-0048
>On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Marco Perry <mperry at pensanyc.com>
>> A certification will not keep people from suing you for what ever
>> want. One lawyer told me that if I don't open source an invention
>> that people can sue me if they follow our BOM and instructions and
>> themselves building our thing. I was also afraid that our invention
>> violated an existing patent, and open sourcing our invention would be
>> somehow make us liable to a patent suit. Couple those legal issues
>with all
>> the worries around open sourcing (rip-offs, loss of business,
>scarring off
>> investor, etc.), it makes it hard to open source.
>> Knowing a trade organization is there to lend a helping hand -
>> knowledge, best practices, relevant examples that I can follow, a
>source of
>> expert witnesses if I do get sued, advocates, advisers and so forth
>> make me feel more comfortable to open sourcing.
>> Without a cohesive trade org, everyone can define "open" as they
>wish, act
>> on their best interests (not a community interest), and it's back to
>> everyone for themselves.
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Chris Church <
>> thisdroneeatspeople at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Tom Igoe wrote:
>>> > The folks I'm thinking of (3 cases) make toys or puzzle-like
>things for
>>> kids, and espouse open source ideals pretty heavily. But they've
>also found
>>> that if they open source their mechanical designs, they face much
>>> liability insurance premiums than if they do not.   They have to
>>> Consumer Product Safety Commission approval, and they run afoul of
>that if
>>> someone comes to them and says "My kid swallowed a part made with
>>> design". With the manufacturing in-house, they can ensure quality
>>> and with the designs closed, they can't be told that they bear
>>> for someone else's works.
>>> >
>>> Internally here, we call this an "Attribution Problem," and it's one
>>> no license can resolve.  It's a liability that may be defensible in
>>> but the primary damage is done long before court comes to be. When
>you have
>>> a clone of a well-known (within the specific market) product, the
>>> tends to attribute any failings of the clone with the original.
>>> What I've often heard in OSHW discussions is that a license which
>>> allow commercial cloning of the product would prevent that product
>>> being "fully open-source," which seems to leave anyone selling
>>> products (I don't mean PCBs to hackers) fully exposed to the
>>> problem.  I'd sleep a lot better at night if there were an inverse
>>> CC-BY-ND, like CC-BY-SA-DO (Derivatives Only) and share absolutely
>>> everything if it were to be.
>>> Chris
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>> --
>> marco perry . principal, pensa
>> 20 jay st., suite 800, brooklyn, ny 11201
>> p 718-855-5354 .  blog.pensanyc.com <http://www.pensanyc.com/>  .
>> www.pensanyc.com . @thinkpensa
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at lists.oshwa.org

Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130301/69b5d6b1/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list