[Discuss] Publish OSHW with CC0?

[Emilio Velis]

As I've commented before on this list, the best way to do could be through
a decentralized database. I think it was Peter Troxler who mentioned of one
that already exists. However, it would be interesting to create a
worldwide-applicable open source database that works as a prior art
database. So for example, you pay this organization to take your
application from scratch or by signing a legal document on which you waive
your patent. Then, they open the technology to the public and help you make
sure this patent isn't awarded anywhere else.

Pretty hard to implement, but this is why patents are a pain.

On 5 November 2014 10:12, alicia <amgibb at gmail.com> wrote:

> For what it's worth, we did have a discussion around this point involving
> lawyers from the EFF. The blog post of what was recommended that day lives
> here:
> http://www.oshwa.org/2013/12/05/open-hardware-legal-meetup-nyu-nov-11/
> It was very much centered around fitting within the legal system that
> already exists.
>
> What Andrew infers is true, they are willing to help remove a stupid
> patent, for example, but don't necessarily think on oshw legal matters for
> us.
>
> Alicia
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Katz <Andrew.Katz at moorcrofts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Javier
>>
>> > On 11/05/2014 03:43 PM, Andrew Katz wrote:
>> > > How do you determine which objects are subject to that compulsion, and
>> > which aren’t?
>> >
>> > Very naively, I would say "those whose designer wished so." There would
>> be
>> > nothing forcing people to build and use those objects, but if they did,
>> they'd
>> > need to comply with the license.
>> Indeed - so there would need to be an underlying IPR which needs to be
>> licensed in the first place, and then we're back to questions of how easy
>> it should be to obtain that IPR, and how to prevent it from being misused
>> by proprietary companies...
>>
>> >Anyway, I acknowledge this is a very complex
>> > debate and I fully see your and Michael's points. In fact, your
>> concerns are
>> > similar to mine: you fear we end up sharing less in our effort to share
>> more. I
>> > fear that we are already in that situation to some extent, because we
>> are using
>> > (and therefore
>> > strengthening) the same IPRs other people use to prevent more sharing.
>> > You both have more experience and knowledge on the (im)possibility of
>> > creating a difficult-to-pervert IPR, so I'll go with you on that.
>>
>> Yes indeed. I'm really glad this is being aired (and it's nice to be in
>> an internet conversation which is civilised!), but it's a topic that comes
>> up with reasonable regularity. I'm still (as you know) far from convinced
>> that it's worth putting much effort in trying to put together a more
>> comprehensive hardware copyleft regime, until (unless) we are sure that, on
>> balance, the good outweighs the evil. By saying " you fear we end up
>> sharing less in our effort to share more" you’ve encapsulated the issue
>> much more neatly than I could!
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20141105/f7baf876/attachment.html>