[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 23, Issue 12
Harry Hutton
harryhutton92 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 23:23:39 UTC 2014
I find Michaels point intriguing - a creative commons license on the design
does not actually have any bearing on the physical object.
I've been told that this is because CC leverages copyright - which only
extends to the idea as it is expressed in the medium of its digital format
(ie the bits and bytes that make up the file). So its not the actual idea
itself.
One could manufacture the product anyway and sell it legally. You're not
using the design file code commercially. You're using the physical product
commercially.
I've got limited knowledge of any open source licenses that work by
specifically stating that the *idea* is free to use by anyone. But I
suppose that works by default by putting it in the public domain?
*Related*
There's an interesting case of the use of a creative commons license to
share a design of a living hinge (to be manufactured via laser cutter). I'm
sure you've seen them before if you've been in a Fablab - living hinge
example here<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WW3ol2sIU8A/UDFBvTdlK5I/AAAAAAAAFj0/FpP-9twFBik/s1600/DSC04683+%2528Custom%2529.JPG>
The thing is, the *idea* for this living hinge falls under a patent
http://www.google.com/patents/US7685676
It won't expire until 2026
So we have an out of control scenario of a patent being shared as open
source design. It's pretty popular. I'd estimate there are over 100,000
cases of individual infringement. Its near impossible for the patent holder
to track this - they're anonymous downloads on the internet - or small
individuals on etsy and suchlike selling them at low volume - not enough
for the damages to outweigh legal fees of a courtcase. A patent is only
worth as much as how well one can defend it.
Open source disrupting the system - the next decade is going to be a crazy
time for the design and engineering world!
There's more discussion on the above case here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/OpenDesign/comments/20lhh6/open_design_vs_patents_living_hinge_case_study/
Harry
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, <discuss-request at lists.oshwa.org> wrote:
> Send discuss mailing list submissions to
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-request at lists.oshwa.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-owner at lists.oshwa.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware? (Emilio Velis)
> 2. Re: Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware? (Emilio Velis)
> 3. Re: Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware? (Andrew Back)
> 4. Re: Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware? (Andrew Back)
> 5. Re: Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware? (Emilio Velis)
> 6. Re: Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware? (Emilio Velis)
> 7. Re: Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware? (Michael Weinberg)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:19:51 -0600
> From: Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
> Message-ID:
> <CAFMcv8VsbP+k+7ajqo0WDv7p1=
> f-ghY91qhTGO_HjZgUEwxV-w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Question. Is there a list of approved licenses for OSHW? For example,
> something like "your work must be under the following licenses".
>
> Regarding NC, that would be shareware by the book.
> El abr 11, 2014 2:15 AM, "Andrew Back" <andrew at carrierdetect.com>
> escribi?:
>
> > On 11 April 2014 09:08, Ben Gray <ben at phenoptix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm of the opinion that it serves best those who don't respect such
> > licenses and punishes those who do.
> >
> > An excellent point -- NC is something of an "own goal".
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Back
> > http://carrierdetect.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140411/6f03d4a6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:19:51 -0600
> From: Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
> Message-ID:
> <CAFMcv8VsbP+k+7ajqo0WDv7p1=
> f-ghY91qhTGO_HjZgUEwxV-w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Question. Is there a list of approved licenses for OSHW? For example,
> something like "your work must be under the following licenses".
>
> Regarding NC, that would be shareware by the book.
> El abr 11, 2014 2:15 AM, "Andrew Back" <andrew at carrierdetect.com>
> escribi?:
>
> > On 11 April 2014 09:08, Ben Gray <ben at phenoptix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm of the opinion that it serves best those who don't respect such
> > licenses and punishes those who do.
> >
> > An excellent point -- NC is something of an "own goal".
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Back
> > http://carrierdetect.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140411/6f03d4a6/attachment-0002.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:39:51 +0100
> From: Andrew Back <andrew at carrierdetect.com>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADj1OPDPJbPpBZDrzfU+dyEAMERk3pm5PBszsDqR8Wyo0XqQAg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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:
>
> http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Back
> http://carrierdetect.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:39:51 +0100
> From: Andrew Back <andrew at carrierdetect.com>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADj1OPDPJbPpBZDrzfU+dyEAMERk3pm5PBszsDqR8Wyo0XqQAg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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:
>
> http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Back
> http://carrierdetect.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:57:39 -0600
> From: Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAFMcv8W9r5Rn6R6D_1tLhLb-G4oVATJiBqDmFzTGsfi21bRJUQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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:
>
> http://opensource.org/licenses
>
> 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
> to use.
> El abr 11, 2014 7:39 AM, "Andrew Back" <andrew at carrierdetect.com>
> escribi?:
>
> > 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:
> >
> > http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Back
> > http://carrierdetect.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140411/7a1b7b38/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:57:39 -0600
> From: Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAFMcv8W9r5Rn6R6D_1tLhLb-G4oVATJiBqDmFzTGsfi21bRJUQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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:
>
> http://opensource.org/licenses
>
> 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
> to use.
> El abr 11, 2014 7:39 AM, "Andrew Back" <andrew at carrierdetect.com>
> escribi?:
>
> > 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:
> >
> > http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Back
> > http://carrierdetect.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140411/7a1b7b38/attachment-0002.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:05:40 -0400
> From: Michael Weinberg <mweinberg at publicknowledge.org>
> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
> <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Is CC BY-NC-SA not Open Source Hardware?
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAMwAheae_WitJno4YUkQDQPDF4NcuOkB+8X6NK3RTUqszvfVtw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> probably also worth mentioning here that, as a general matter, a copyright
> on plans for a useful object (like, say, a 3D printer) doesn't mean that
> making said object is copyright infringement. Details of Printrbot
> specifically may vary, but it may be a useful thing to keep in mind.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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:
> >
> > http://opensource.org/licenses
> >
> > 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
> > to use.
> > El abr 11, 2014 7:39 AM, "Andrew Back" <andrew at carrierdetect.com>
> > escribi?:
> >
> > 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:
> >>
> >> http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Back
> >> http://carrierdetect.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Michael Weinberg, Vice President, PK Thinks
> 202-861-0020 (o) | @mweinbergPK
>
> Public Knowledge | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org
> 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036
>
> Promoting a Creative & Connected Future.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140411/68f5c0c5/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> End of discuss Digest, Vol 23, Issue 12
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140412/2104baff/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list