[Discuss] curious statement on github about oshwa certiification
nancy.ouyang at gmail.com
Thu Jul 7 21:27:32 UTC 2016
Update: turned out, occam's razor, it was a simple case of confusing the
certification for the license. See my previous email when it gets released
from moderation :)
my personal blog <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Nancy Ouyang <nouyang at mit.edu> wrote:
> Update: I emailed and got an awesome reply -- here are the relevant
> Happy to "user interview" more to understand where the *misconceptions*
> My beef with the OSHW license is that if you license something as OSHW
>> under that license, you don't get anything. It doesn't add anything to
>> the technical work, it doesn't get you funding, etc. At the same time,
>> if you fail to comply with the licensing requirements, they list an
>> escalating scale of penalties
>> , bottom of the page) they intend to impose on non-complying projects.
>> So in exchange for nothing, you can get penalties. This is not
>> something I want to be on the receiving end of, so I'm explicitly not
>> using that licensing.
>> Of course, I'd be happy if people adopted, copied, even sold the
>> hardware (then I could buy it instead of making it myself :-), so I
>> publish all the docs and whatnot, and encourage their use.
> *I spot a two key misconceptions:*
> 1) license = certification
> 2) you are stuck in the certificaiton program and can't "leave at any
> time" to avoid penalties
> narwhaledu.org, educational robots
> <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu> [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog
> <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>> GPL v3 is specifically 'viral'. In so far as it infects attached /
>> derivative code. Different issue. I would think.
>> On July 3, 2016 5:44:08 PM EDT, "j. eric townsend" <
>> jet at functionalprototype.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 2016, at 01:56, Nancy Ouyang <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.
>>> Two disclaimers:
>>> - I am not a lawyer and this is not legal opinion.
>>> - I worked at TiVo for 10 years (left several years ago) and had the previous disclaimer pounded in to my thick skull. :-)
>>> Based on the confusion I’ve seen with lawyers, GPL v3, and using emacs to write software I suspect there might be a fear (without standing?) that open source software + commercial hardware can somehow create an open source hardware product. I have rec
>>> legal instruction from a potential client to not use any GPL v3 software — not even emacs to edit text files — on their project because their fear it would make their product also GPL v3. (I ended up not taking that contract.)
>>> That sounded a bit odd to me at the time, but Apple is cleaning v3 (and v2) software from each release of OS X:
>>> J. Eric Townsend, IDSA
>>> designer | engineer | fabricator
>>> jet at functionalprototype.com
>>> PGP 0x9D6F2CB8
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss