[Discuss] New Blog Post Up!
Dr. Peter Troxler
trox at fabfolk.com
Wed May 21 22:46:09 UTC 2014
Taking the usual precautions (ianal, tinla), I think there are at least two issues at hand. One is the incompatibility of open and cc-options (as you point out), the second is the incompatibility of hardware with copyright.
(1) I guess you’ve summarized it to the point: anything else than cc-by, cc-by-sa and CC0 is not in the spirit of whatever-we-call-it-(but-preferrably-not-open-source)
(2) hardware (oversimplified: “useful things”) is not automatically “protected” by “IP” legislation (much different to “beautiful things” that are automatically “protected” by copyright on publication) ... so a license is non-sensical (as “license” means: you are allowed to do what normally would be prohibited), and there is debate if “open hardware licenses” are legally meaningful or void (that’s what I understand from the legal discussion).
Nonetheless, even if a hardware license is (legally) nonsense, it is a communication device to signal “that’s who I mean my stuff to be handled”. But on that level, ie. when the legal meaning is void anyway, the NC and ND clauses become different animals. And that’s worth looking into. Still we need to acknowledge that legally (and aiming for what you call open source) they are utter rubbish. And maybe even on communication-face-level they are rubbish too (e.g. NC meaning that “if somebody is making money off it I want my fair share” -- vs. “If you are not able to extract money from your brilliant thing you’re maybe just not as brilliant as you think, at least commercially”)
On 21 May 2014, at 23:33, alicia <amgibb at gmail.com> wrote:
> New Blog Post on OSHWA to clarify which Creative Commons licenses are compatible with open source:
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss