[Discuss] Publish OSHW with CC0?

Roy Nielsen amrset at gmail.com
Wed Nov 5 17:05:22 UTC 2014


Sounds like a great idea for a startup for someone :)

Regards,
-Roy

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bdd3c94d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list