[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 23, Issue 12
Michael Weinberg
mweinberg at publicknowledge.org
Mon Apr 14 22:36:07 UTC 2014
Sorry to harp on this, but useful objects can never be protected by
copyright in the United States. They are outside of the scope of copyright
protection. Non-functional elements of useful objects that can be severed
from the useful object (either physically or conceptually) can be protected
by copyright.
Similarly, plans for useful objects can be protected by copyright. But a
copyright on those plans for a useful object do not prevent someone from
reproducing the useful (i.e. functional) object itself. They merely
protect the plans themselves from being copied. This plan point arguably
gets more complicated for CAD files for useful objects (insomuch as they
become the only way to represent a useful object and copyright protection
would prevent someone from reproducing said object), but that's probably a
longer discussion.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140414/110cbe69/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list