[Discuss] curious statement on github about oshwa certiification
Antoine C.
smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 21:36:25 UTC 2016
It seems not really clear to get information about the way the author
choose to get what he/she declared to happen: "This project is open
source in the sense that I legally permit people to do whatever they
want with the source code, design drawings, etc": indeed, licence
information seems not available, don't it ?
It sounds a bit like a WTFYW "posture": no information on legal basis,
means people will use it at they own risk, and then they will not be
able to play against the author.
It seems the OSHWA "certification" process has been played well in this
case: the author seemed to prefer to declare to not play certification,
instead of declaring playing it but without respecting it. Maybe there
was too much to lose to play certification compared to the gain: too
much efforts to reach the requirements, or impossibility to reach the
requirements because the basis on which this "creation" is delivered,
are not valid, or difficult to be valid.
Who knows ...
Le 03/07/2016 22:45, Emilio Velis a écrit :
> Definitely. I'm curious on hearing opinions about how a certification
> can have a legal weight. I don't think that this is the case regarding
> intellectual property law, but I'd be really, really interested to
> know if there are any implications. This could actually be very
> beneficial to OSHWA.
>
> On 3 July 2016 at 10:38, Jeffrey Warren <jeff at publiclab.org
> <mailto:jeff at publiclab.org>> wrote:
>
> I'd be curious to hear too, maybe they mean that if they
> self-certify in the program, then violate the requirements, that
> they'd face compliance penalties? But those are not civil
> lawsuits, and they could be avoided simply by withdrawing from the
> program. It's pretty straightforward, so more info from them would
> be helpful.
>
> It's also a little frustrating, of course, to hear an unsupported
> opinion (esp. the "only" part) like that included as if it were
> somehow incontrovertible or self-evident, as I'd love to see more
> discussion instead of FUD. In any case, they should also be aware
> that they can of course be compliant with the open hardware
> definition (and so be "open hardware") without being in the
> certification program.
>
> On Jul 3, 2016 12:22 PM, "Emilio Velis" <contacto at emiliovelis.com
> <mailto:contacto at emiliovelis.com>> wrote:
>
> I wonder about that statement too. Good catch, Nancy. I don't
> understand what kinds of civil lawsuits the person refers to.
> Perhaps if we write them they can explain it a bit further...?
>
> On 2 July 2016 at 23:56, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com
> <mailto:nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Err, was more wondering about the last phrase, "the only
> thing that certification adds to a project is increased
> liability to civil suits," which I'm sure is a very
> unflattering portrayal of the value that certification
> adds, unless I'm very confused.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Nancy
>
> On Jul 2, 2016 12:45 PM, "Matt Maier"
> <blueback09 at gmail.com <mailto:blueback09 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Everything is "explicitly not compliant" with the
> OSHWA certification by default. You have to opt-in.
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Nancy Ouyang
> <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com
> <mailto:nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> "This project is open source in the sense that I
> legally permit people to do whatever they want
> with the source code, design drawings, etc.; and
> in the sense that I provide that information for
> them to do what they want. It is EXPLICITLY NOT
> COMPLIANT with the OSHWA Certification. It never
> will be, because the only thing that certification
> adds to a project is increased liability to civil
> suits. "
> _https://github.com/ab3nd/TinyRobo#oshw_
> _
> _
> Is this simply a complaint about copyleft vs
> public domain, or is there more to it? Haven't
> been following the certification draft (beta?)
> discussion, sorry -- does anyone have a link?
> skimmed oshwa.org <http://oshwa.org/> and didn't
> see anything in particular (though saw a
> discussion about the design of the mark i think)
>
> thanks,
> --nancy
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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 <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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160703/7c62cd6c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list