[Discuss] curious statement on github about oshwa certiification

Nancy Ouyang nancy.ouyang at gmail.com
Thu Jul 7 21:49:24 UTC 2016

It appears this particular page may be showing up high on google results
and spreading a lot of FUD with nothing to counter it.

Perhaps, we should explicitly state that OSHW certification is intended for
for-profit enterprises or large companies
And give a disambiguation use case (for instance, the *certification* is
for helping intel understand what is oshw and how to be correctly oshw, and
the *license* is to help ensure that re-contribution from users in a
copyleft fashion)

We might even make a webpage,

   - *which license do you want?*
      - oshwa: copyleft
      - cc0 public domain: don't care
      - CERN OHL <http://www.ohwr.org/projects/cernohl/wiki>: ??? I know
      nothing about it
      - open compute license

my personal blog <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com> wrote:

> To avoid further confusion -- we may want to refresh the main
> http://www.oshwa.org/ site,
>    - *clarify certification vs license -- *it's worrisome that the
>    certification program is already confusing people about what the license is
>    :(
>    - *clearly and prominently show people where to ask questions --* this
>    should be present on ALL pages
>       - perhaps simply add this email address to the header banner image
> (I understand though, too many things to do for too few volunteers!)
> ~~~
> my personal blog <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>, orangenarwhals
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Nancy Ouyang <nancy.ouyang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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
>>> complaints.
>>> Happy to "user interview" more to understand where the *misconceptions*
>>> arose:
>>> 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
>>>> (
>>>> http://www.oshwa.org/2015/09/19/open-source-hardware-certification-version-1/
>>>> , 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
>>>>>  eived
>>>>> 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:
>>>>> <http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/>.
>>>>> --
>>>>> J. Eric Townsend, IDSA
>>>>> designer | engineer | fabricator
>>>>> jet at functionalprototype.com
>>>>> PGP 0x9D6F2CB8
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160707/164a5686/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list