[Discuss] New Blog Post Up!

Matt Maier blueback09 at gmail.com
Thu May 22 17:50:13 UTC 2014

That's a good suggestion. The effort put into drafting a new license would
be better spent on discussing the existing licenses and agreeing on where
specifically they fall short. Most likely, pushing for a new version of
existing licenses would be better than creating a new one.

That being said, for what it's worth (I'm self-educated in IP) I don't have
much hope of open source hardware licenses ever being particularly

Digital files are already well served by FLOSS/CC licenses and the hardware
itself can only be covered by patents. I think we just have to live with
the difference.

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Andrew Back <andrew at carrierdetect.com>wrote:

> On 22 May 2014 18:34, Mike Eber <meber at makertronic.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think the OSHWA need's to come up with it's own OSHW appropriate
> license.
> Consider first what you seek to achieve that CERN, TAPR and SolderPad
> licences do not allow you to do.
> 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/20140522/753964fe/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list