[Discuss] "Open" licenses
blueback09 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 3 18:07:25 UTC 2014
If they don't even mention any of the established "open source" licenses
it's a safe bet their license isn't actually open.
Just from a quick scan this one obviously violates a couple principles. It
doesn't allow you to sell anything, which is a point of contention anyway.
But the worst thing (in my mind) is that it restricts fields of endeavor
and associated technology. You're only allowed to use the "reference
material" to do work that is based on their product and benefits their
technology. You can't use it for whatever you're interested in.
Basically they're allowing you to do some of their user testing and R&D for
them, but without being able to benefit from the work yourself (sell
something or use it in your own projects).
I would call this license "not open." The few things they do allow don't
make up for the things they don't allow.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Michael McCormack <mike at themccormacks.com>
> Is there anyone who routinely reviews licenses to say "yes" or "no" to
> open? I was looking at license associated the ST NUCLEO boards:
> and off the top of my head, I'd say it is pretty much not what most people
> consider the term open to mean as it limits my use to only their products.
> I realize that they may not have any legal grounds to limit my use, as
> hardware is subject to patents and not copyrights and without a patent on
> their boards they probably have nothing to license. But my question is
> more general though prompted ST non-open-license - is there someplace that
> weighs in on whether a someone's new license is open or not?
> Michael McCormack
> mike at themccormacks.com
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss