[Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
contacto at emiliovelis.com
Fri Apr 11 13:57:39 UTC 2014
But that leaves us with a very ambiguous use of the term 'open'. If you
check the CC faq, they recommend to use approved licenses only for software:
In the case of OSHW, due to being different than intangible goods, a list
of requirements has to be developed for people to make sure their work is
not open in tue definition sense of the term (i.e. source code available)
but also regarding all layers of content and freedoms of use. A metadesign
of licensing so that others can build upon and create options for tinkerers
El abr 11, 2014 7:39 AM, "Andrew Back" <andrew at carrierdetect.com> escribió:
> On 11 April 2014 14:19, Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com> wrote:
> > Question. Is there a list of approved licenses for OSHW? For example,
> > something like "your work must be under the following licenses".
> Not that I know of, but it isn't difficult to ascertain what can be
> regarded as such by referring to the Open Source Definition:
> Discrimination against field of endeavour being the issue at hand here.
> If in doubt simply consider whether the licence is aligned with open
> source as it has come to be understood over the last 17 or so years.
> Every now and again you see attempts to subvert this, e.g. via use of
> NC licences with the term or purported ancillary rules, but you cannot
> change the meaning of something so well established. Which is not to
> say that there are not opportunities for new paradigms and which adopt
> some term other than "open source".
> > Regarding NC, that would be shareware by the book.
> Not really, as you rarely get the source with shareware.
> Andrew Back
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss