[Discuss] Attribution on physical hardware?

Antoine C 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)".

Freely,
Antoine


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.
> 
> Freely,
> Antoine
> 
> 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/20150911/25589793/attachment.key>


More information about the discuss mailing list