[Discuss] curious statement on github about oshwa certiification

Nancy Ouyang nouyang at mit.edu
Fri Jul 8 10:41:06 UTC 2016

Oh huh, shows what I know about what all is going on. I hadn't looked too
much in detail because I've been cc0'ing all my (rather useless) stuff.
I guess I assumed http://www.oshwa.org/definition/ was reflected in a
license of some kind, but now that I'm reading it again, it explicitly
talks about "licenses compatible with this definition".
In any case, yea, more disambiguation about TAPR OHL and CERN OHL and its
relationship to OSHWA and OSHW and OSHWA certification (which I am clearly
not qualified at this instant to do) would be nice.

narwhaledu.org, educational robots <http://gfycat.com/ExcitableLeanAkitainu>
 [[<(._.)>]] my personal blog <http://www.orangenarwhals.com>,

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Javier Serrano <Javier.Serrano at cern.ch>

> On 07/07/2016 11:49 PM, Nancy Ouyang wrote:
> >   * *which license do you want?*
> >       o oshwa: copyleft
> There is no oshwa license I am aware of. If you want persistence in an
> open hardware license, the two options I know of are TAPR OHL and CERN OHL.
> In my opinion, the most important message about licensing we should
> convey is this: a license *is* what allows the design to be shared in
> the way we want. The default for copyright in many jurisdictions is "all
> rights reserved", i.e. if I find a design on the web, in principle I
> don't have the right to copy it, modify it and redistribute it. A
> license is the tool we use to grant those permissions.
> Cheers,
> Javier
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160708/1214647d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list