[Discuss] curious statement on github about oshwa certiification

Antoine C. smallwindturbineproj.contactor at gmail.com
Sat Jul 9 09:06:14 UTC 2016

08/07/2016 14:35, Matt Maier  :
> We need to keep explaining this stuff, over and over again
07/07/2016 23:49, Nancy Ouyang  :
> We might even make a webpage,
>   * *which license do you want?*
>       o oshwa: copyleft
>       o cc0 public domain: don't care
>       o CERN OHL <http://www.ohwr.org/projects/cernohl/wiki>: ??? I
>         know nothing about it
>       o open compute license
>         <http://www.opencompute.org/blog/request-for-comment-ocp-hardware-license-agreement/>:
>         ???
08/07/2016 14:08, Javier Serrano :
> This
> means that when I license a design under the CERN OHL, you, as the
> licensee, can be sure I will never sue you for patent infringement if
> you e.g. manufacture and sell hardware based on the design files. You
> don't get that reassurance when you use a Creative Commons license.

Nancy, Matt, Javier, and all,

I also have the feeling we should better explain what is possible, not
possible, secured, not secured, regarding usages of licences and effects
of certifications, when somebody wants to port FLOSS practices into the
world of the manufacturing of things made with atoms.

Indeed, as I've already told you, we run in France, along the past 10
days during two events in France (Pas Sage En Seine Hacker Space
Festival, and SummerLab Nantes 2016), a serial of 7 short presentations:
15-20mn presenting the topic, the possibilities, the known issues and
wrong practices; followed by 20-45mn of free talks with participants
(main of them was people coming from Hacklabs or FabLabs). And I was
very surprised to hear what people said. Here is bellow, a summary of
what I heard, in five points.

§- First: even if they are aware about FLOS licences, thanks to their
Lab community, they still make wrong reasoning about the effect that
could have FLOS licence on exploitations capable of industrial
applications. They still think that FLOS licences have an effect on
exploitations capable of industrial applications. And it is really
wrong: FLOS licences have no effect on manufacturings - except for
immediately visible aesthetic designs in only certain special cases.

§- Second: they think that an individual using an OHL licence (TAPR or
CERN), will generate automatically effects on manufacturings made by any
manufacturers around using the documentation placed under OHL licence.
And it is really wrong: OHL licences generate this corridor only between
professionals - merchant or non-merchant organizations - who deal
together including OHL licence in their agreements processes. The law
giving this possibility, is not copyright law, but other laws which are
activate between those professionals.

§- Third: they think that a publication under FLOS licences or OHL
licence across any web site, will give them a way to avoid a future
patent declaration by any actor. And it is really wrong: without
previous research of patent, they may publish a thing which is already a
patent, and whatever a publication across a web site, it will not avoid
somebody to ask for a patent for the part which is patentable.

§- Fourth: they think that putting their creations under FLOS licences
or OHL licences, will give them a way to avoid a competition with actors
that they don't like. And that is really really really wrong: searching
to open knowledge, is a sort of "gift for humanity" where anybody will
have the possibility to use it, copy it, etc ... Then, searching this,
is like to create a sort of hyper-competition environment. And that is
exactly the opposite of what those people hope to create using an
openness process. They discover after some explanations, that the
portage of FLOS practices into atom world, will generate corridors of
"fans" - like Fair Trade, Organic, etc ... - and get this picture of
possibility to get a smart place next to price competition positioning

§- Fifth: they think it is impossible to make experimentations into
fablabs with things which are under patent, because of those patents.
That is really wrong: anybody could make any experimentations with
things that are under patent, until this experimentation keeps an
experimentation and do not serve any exploitations capable of industrial
applications. In hacklabs, any body could continue to experiment with
patent or non-patent things.

According to this, I really think we should, 1) involve the accuracy of
the information available, and 2) increase numbers of short moments to
presentation this new reality in progress.

Should we launch a work on this together ?
How could it be done ?

Love and Peace,
Antoine C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160709/0611468d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list