[Discuss] New Blog Post Up!

Mike Eber meber at makertronic.com
Thu May 22 17:34:53 UTC 2014


I think the OSHWA need's to come up with it's own OSHW appropriate license.
It would help a lot of the confusion surrounding OSHW.

Some people think it is already a license itself.

Regards,

Mike Eber


@Makertronic <http://www.twitter.com/Makertronic>
1221 Flower Mound Road, Suite 320-102
Flower Mound,  TX  75028


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org> wrote:

> I just wanted to clarify that while there is ongoing discussion of how
> enforceable various OH licenses are going to be, there are plenty of people
> who think they're possible and workable, and have been developing
> mechanisms to make up for the lack of direct copyrightability of hardware.
> A careful reading of the CERN OHL and the discussions that led up to its
> drafting and revision make it pretty clear that these licenses were not
> developed in ignorance of IP law.
>
> But I think your comment "...we need to acknowledge that legally (and
> aiming for what you call open source) they are utter rubbish." referred to
> the Non-Commercial clauses, not the legal basis of open hardware licensing,
> right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <trox at fabfolk.com>wrote:
>
>> 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:
>> http://www.oshwa.org/2014/05/21/cc-oshw/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alicia
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Mike Eber


@Makertronic <http://www.twitter.com/Makertronic>
1221 Flower Mound Road, Suite 320-102
Flower Mound,  TX  75028
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140522/6df344de/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list