[Discuss] New Blog Post Up!
jeff at publiclab.org
Thu May 22 17:56:11 UTC 2014
> the hardware itself can only be covered by patents
I think i have to disagree -- i think many people think a bit too narrowly
about what "hardware" is -- lots of things aren't patentable, or the
patents have expired, and we may still be interested in a share-alike
provision (where possible) and/or in the collaborative, open source
development model. We can't ignore patents where they are applicable, but
hardware is not exactly the same thing as patentability.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> Consider first what you seek to achieve that CERN, TAPR and SolderPad
>> licences do not allow you to do.
>> Andrew Back
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss