[Discuss] Attribution on physical hardware?
smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 12:31:12 UTC 2015
Sorry. I made a mistake in my previous message :
> At the opposite, the opensource hardware licence (TAPR or OHL) ...
Please read "(TAPR-OHL or CERN-OHL)" instead of "(TAPR or OHL)".
Le 11/09/2015 09:22, Antoine C a écrit :
> 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 )
>> 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?
>> >> 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>
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3149 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the discuss