[Discuss] curious statement on github about oshwa certiification

[Nancy Ouyang]

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/ffc6c201/attachment-0001.html>