[Discuss] Attribution on physical hardware?

[Emilio Velis]

I agree on that, but we have to be careful (as we are with everything OSH)
not to compromise hardware and subject it to understanding it as a
copyrightable object. The big problem with this is that some objects are
actually copyrightable, especially some useful objects, and pushing
attribution as a requirement on the object instead of a clarification and a
cultural norm may bring about bad results.

Here is an example. There was a big fuzz recently about cars being somewhat
"copyrightable" because they're seen as pieces of software that operate
hardware. Or something like that. If an open hardware piece is sold with an
embedded operating software that is not open, would that force you to use
attribution when you manufacture it? If manufacturing demands attribution
embedded on it, then you have a case for implying that the hardware piece
is copyrightable, etc.

On 10 September 2015 at 08:20, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it makes sense to try to establish a cultural norm of distributing
> the license and attribution with the physical object. Not necessarily on
> the object, but maybe on the receipt or in the packaging. The primary
> reason for making something open source in the first place is to encourage
> others to build off of it and a big part of that actually happening is just
> knowing that it's an option.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Emilio Velis <contacto at emiliovelis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You have to make it specifically clear that the bits-and-atoms product
>> cannot be copyrightable (usually), only the design files or any other types
>> of expression regarding the hardware.
>>
>> In that line of thought, I understand that if you create something like a
>> table from a set of code (design specifications, CAD files), that product
>> isn't subjected to copyright in the sense that you're not making a copy of
>> the files, and thus, if you can make, sell or modify the product without
>> the restrictions that copyright will give you, it's only fair that
>> attribution shouldn't be a legal requirement for that table. Now, the
>> design files, is another story. If you make copies to distribute and/or
>> sell, then an attribution note should be in it.
>>
>>
>> On 10 September 2015 at 02:57, Antoine C <
>> smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Drew,
>>> Hummm ... maybe ... sometime, a label attached to the thing made with
>>> atoms and particles, will probably be enough, when a mark graved
>>> somewhere on it, indicating the licence and where linked information
>>> could be found, would be better, if possible.
>>> Is it ?
>>> (not so easy to do in the real life, but compulsory ... then just have
>>> to do it )
>>> Freely,
>>> Antoine C.
>>>
>>> Le 09/09/2015 22:16, Drew Fustini a écrit :
>>> > oops, adding a Subject:
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> I was just reading this thread on the arm-netbook mailing list:
>>> >>
>>> >>   [Arm-netbook] How much to design A20 board?
>>> >>
>>> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/2015-September/010660.html
>>> >>
>>> >> and came across this viewpoint:
>>> >>
>>> >>   "attribution clauses require you to advertise *on the product*."
>>> >>
>>> >> I've never considered that before.  Anyone have thoughts about if the
>>> >> physical piece of hardware based on CC-BY-SA designs needs to have
>>> >> attribution inscribed on it?
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks,
>>> >> drew
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150910/9da705ab/attachment-0001.html>