[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 23, Issue 12
Emilio Velis
contacto at emiliovelis.com
Mon Apr 14 22:18:33 UTC 2014
Specifically in the United States, useful objects *can *be protected by
copyright, but not in all cases. Long story short, a useful article is
copyrightable if there is a way to separate its design feature from its
useful characteristics. Here's some info on the subject of the separability
test:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1650&context=lawreview
I think this is the part of the US Copyright law that addresses the subject:
> *“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and
> three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs,
> prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and
> technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include
> works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their
> mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful
> article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial,
> graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such
> design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be
> identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of,
> the utilitarian aspects of the article.18
> <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-18>*
>
On 14 April 2014 10:30, Michael Weinberg <mweinberg at publicknowledge.org>wrote:
> I want to clarify a point or two here, especially with regard to what a
> copyright can and cannot protect. Copyright can absolutely protect a
> digital file, and can absolutely protect a physical object. In fact, the
> creator of a digital file that represents a non-functional object probably
> owns the copyright in both. In that case, the CC license would be
> enforceable against violators regardless of the medium the unauthorized
> copy (digital or physical) appears in.
>
> The distinction that is critical to keep in mind is that copyright does
> not protect "useful" objects - things that perform tasks and whatnot. In
> large part, those types of objects are beyond the scope of copyright, but
> are at least eligible for patent. However, blueprints and plans for those
> useful objects can be protected by copyright (and, by extension, can be
> licensed by a CC license).
>
> Why is this important? Let's say I create a new 3D printer and release my
> plans under a CC license. In order to copy the plans without infringing
> on my copyrights, you need to operate within the scope of the CC license
> (attribution, share alike, whatever). However, and this is a big however,
> you do not need my permission to create the useful object that is described
> in those plans. Therefore, you can ignore my license requirements when
> reproducing my printer (obviously the copying of the files that may be
> required to build the printer can complicate this analysis, but let's keep
> it simple for now).
>
> This is actually a really important distinction, and one that I am very
> happy exists. Copyright is a very powerful right, but it is restricted to
> non-functional, creative expression. If a copyright on a digital file
> could also protect the useful object depicted in that file, it would
> massively expand the scope of copyright protection. Every 20 year patent
> on an extruder could be turned into a life + 70 year copyright on it.
>
> So, while idea/expression is important in this discussion (especially when
> talking about what parts of a digital file are actually protected by
> copyright), when I weighed in I was actually thinking about something even
> more basic.
>
> As for the living hinge, I'm not totally familiar with that example but
> that won't stop me from mentioning two last things. If the 100,000 hinges
> in the wild infringe on the patent, they are simply infringing on the
> patent - the patent holder may or may not decide to bring action, but that
> doesn't really change their legal status. However, if the hinges in the
> wild are outside of the scope of the patent, they are not going to be
> infringing at all.
>
> Regardless, as a classic "useful object," the hinge itself cannot be
> licensed under any CC license because it is not protected by copyright in
> the first place.
>
> But it is cool to see something like this spread and the next decade is
> going to be a crazy time for design and engineering.
>
> Hopefully this doesn't come across as too much legal cold water. I just
> wanted to make sure that I wasn't inadvertently misleading anyone on this
> stuff.
>
> -michael
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:03 PM, FREE SMALL WIND TURBINE PROJECT PEOPLE <
> smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Harry,
>> Copyright has not a unique meening and has not a unique legal definition
>> around the world.
>> In some countries, rights of authors covers any rights on their works,
>> whatever the derivative works are physical or not. In such countries, the
>> term "Copyright" has sometimes, no power above domestic authorship rights.
>> In coutries where Cross-Country-Copyright term or domestic copyright
>> term, is enought defined, it seems admitted that CC is not enough to be
>> 100% sure physical derivative works coming from a CC design work is also CC
>> covered.
>> As you know, that is why other licences exist, like wellknown TAPR-OHL
>> and CERN-OHL : to include both documentation and products under
>> openhardware definition(s).
>> I let you searching answers for countries you'd like to include in your
>> project usage, for up and down streams of the "material things" you'd like
>> to share.
>> Freely,
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-12 1:23 GMT+02:00 Harry Hutton <harryhutton92 at gmail.com>:
>>
>> 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
>>>> ***************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140414/ce6a1d26/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list