[Discuss] Attribution on physical hardware?

Antoine C smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 07:22:49 UTC 2015

In addition, and maybe to clear this subject (again): if CC is used as a
licence for an atoms-and-particles thing, then the CC licence covers
*only* the documentation *and do not cover* the downstream manufacturing
flow and things made from this documentation.

That means: any inscription required by a CC licence, must be placed on
the documentation (the product, which is sometime a digitalised support,
but which could also be inscriptions graved on the wall of a deep cavern
...). The product, is not the thing made from this documentation, but it
is the documentation by itself.

At the opposite, the opensource hardware licence (TAPR or OHL) cover the
stream of manufacturing. And them, those licences may have requirements
about inscription to be placed on the made-with-atoms-and-particles
thing manufactured from licenced covered documentation.


Le 10/09/2015 15:37, Emilio Velis a écrit :
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>     > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list
>     discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto: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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x1F7996D8.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3149 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150911/84221963/attachment.key>

More information about the discuss mailing list