[Discuss] Request for Comments: Digital DIY: Legal Challenges & Solutions Practised Report

[Wouter Tebbens]

Dear Paul,

On 22-09-16 10:53, Paul Bristow wrote:
> 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.
sounds like the four freedoms  + copyleft to me. I share that objective.

Please see the other mail I sent a few minutes ago, on the legal case
for copyleft licensing in the context of hardware designs. Looking
forward to your comments.

best,

Wouter

> Best Regards,
> 
> Paul 
> 
> *Paul Bristow*
> 
> *T  *+33 (0)4 50 59 07 83
> 
> *panglosslabs.org <http://panglosslabs.org/> - T*he open innovation lab
> for Grand Genève
> 
> 
>> On 22 Sep 2016, at 09:33, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>