[Discuss] Request for Comments: Digital DIY: Legal Challenges & Solutions Practised Report
paul at panglosslabs.org
Thu Sep 22 08:53:06 UTC 2016
Perhaps it would be useful to collate what we would ideally like to achieve with open source hardware “licenses” and then discuss how?
For example, I would like to be sure that when I release a hardware design, the condition for using it is that modifications are published under the same conditions. I do not wish to place restrictions on making money with the design.
T +33 (0)4 50 59 07 83
panglosslabs.org <http://panglosslabs.org/> - The open innovation lab for Grand Genève
> On 22 Sep 2016, at 09:33, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, copyright doesn't force people to do anything; worst case is it forbids people from doing things.
> And it's weird to rail against copyright from a libre perspective because copyleft, the legal precedent that allows for free/libre in the first place, wouldn't exist without copyright.
> It's the courts enforcing the terms of copyleft that gives free/libre power. If you want to get rid of copyright then you'll also lose copyleft.
> That's the exact challenge we have in hardware! There isn't any copyright for hardware (functional objects) so we can't use copyleft to enforce hardware licenses.
> The absence of copyleft makes a domain open source by default. It's only with copyleft that free/libre can exist. You have to have the ability to get a court to issue an injunction against someone that wants to use your free/libre stuff in violation of the terms that require sharing. Without the option of getting the courts to side with you there isn't any way to enforce free/libre.
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Brennen Bearnes <bbearnes at gmail.com <mailto:bbearnes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Various parties wrote:
> > > 2. Alert:
> > > Please, please, please, do not call you 3.1. section
> > > "copyright", please, oh please, let stop this, please really
> > > please Wouter, not for a european paper, please please please
> > > Wouter. Please find an other term like "right of authorship",
> > > or "right of intellectual property",
> > NO. the concept of "intelligence as property" is both fake,
> > misleading, and utterly arrogant. how DARE you claim that you can
> > ENSLAVE ME through OWNERSHIP of the intelligence within MY mind
> > that is my BIRTHRIGHT.
> It kind of seems like this rhetorical mode might not be doing us
> any favors.
> -- bpb
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss <http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss>
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss