[Discuss] Favorite OSHW Linux computers?

alicia amgibb at gmail.com
Fri Feb 6 21:11:40 UTC 2015

Sorry for the confusion - You're correct, NC is not open source.

To clarify: when talking about no licensing on this is specifically *on the
hardware itself*. And wether or not we can even license without a patent,
so applying the definition sets your intensions rather than using a license
or in addition to using an open license.

When talking about design files that *can* be covered by copyright
(schematics, code, drawings), yes they need to be licensed openly without a
NC clause. Do NOT put no license on your code or your copyrightable stuff
because it will default to copyright.


On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Nathan Seidle <nathan at sparkfun.com>
> wrote:
>> We should encourage them to include a license on the files for clarity's
>> sake, not because it's a requirement to claim OSHW
> That is an interesting point that you raise and I think it makes sense.
> But I am now confused about design files released under a license with a
> Non-Commercial clause like CC NC.   I bought a Printrbot Simple last year,
> and I was dissappointed to discover it's design files have the CC NC
> clause.  My understanding is this meant the product failed to meet the OSHW
> definition.
> However, I am now wondering if this is correct.  If design files with no
> license are considered OSHW, then does it makes sense to regard design
> files with a NC license as not being OSHW?
> thanks,
> drew
> http://keybase.io/pdp7
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150206/5de725bc/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list