[Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
ben at phenoptix.com
Fri Apr 11 08:08:52 UTC 2014
It's correct that under the definition it's not considered Open Source
Hardware. I understand that the release of files under an NC license is
done with the best intentions but I'm of the opinion that it serves best
those who don't respect such licenses and punishes those who do.
Ben Gray - Director
On 11 April 2014 08:12, Andrew Back <andrew at carrierdetect.com> wrote:
> On 11 April 2014 07:04, Windell H. Oskay <windell at oskay.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:38 PM, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi - I'd like to get the opinion of the list. I recently came to
> realize that PrintrBot design files are licensed under CC BY-SA-NC
> (Non-Commercial). For example:
> >> This seems to disqualify it from being Open Source Hardware per the
> OSHWA definition:
> >> http://www.oshwa.org/definition/
> >> "Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly
> available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the
> design or hardware based on that design."
> >> The best practices go on to state:
> >> http://www.oshwa.org/sharing-best-practices/
> >> "Note that the definition of open-source hardware specifies that you
> must allow modification and commercial re-use of your design, so avoid
> licenses with a no-derivatives or non-commercial clause."
> >> It would seem based on this that I shouldn't refer to Printrbot as Open
> Source Hardware. Is it best to just describe it as CC BY-SA-NC?
> > Hi Drew,
> > Yes, that's correct. If they're using an "NC" license, they don't also
> get to advertise it as OSHW. For simplicity, it's usually fine to refer to
> things like this as "released under a creative commons license."
> I'd probably extend that to "released under a creative commons
> non-commercial license", just for added clarity.
> I'm sure Printrbot have the best intentions and it's arguable that -NC
> is better than all out proprietary, but the fact that nobody can say
> what non-commercial actually means with any certainty, suggests to me
> that it's little better than getting schematics supplied with your
> radio or whatever -- as was often the case many years ago -- for the
> sole purposes of servicing.
> Andrew Back
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss