[Discuss] Attribution on physical hardware?

[Matt Maier]

There's no implications, only misunderstandings. Copyright, trademarks,
patents, etc are all well defined. Unfortunately, all that definition means
they can get complicated. So a cultural norm of including a little extra
information to clarify how a particular thing relates to everything else
would be helpful.
On Sep 10, 2015 08:19, "Emilio Velis" <contacto at emiliovelis.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150910/291706a9/attachment.html>