<div dir="ltr">Hi Yahia,<div><br></div><div>If I understood it correctly, your question is: why can something licensed NC be considered open source software and not open source hardware? Well, the short answer is that the open source software definition does not recognize NC licenses either. The OSHW definition was modeled after the OSS definition and they contain the same basic rights and restrictions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The Open Source Definition (see article 1): <a href="http://opensource.org/osd-annotated">http://opensource.org/osd-annotated</a></div><div><br></div><div>And here's a comment by Eric Raymond about NC clauses:</div>
<div><br></div><div><ol class="" style="margin:13px 0px 18px 25px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-size:13px;line-height:1;font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;list-style:none;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><li class="" id="comment-372240" style="margin:0px 0px 18px;padding:0px;border:0px;line-height:18px;font-family:inherit">
<div id="div-comment-372240" class=""><div class=""><cite class="" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;line-height:1;font-family:inherit;text-transform:uppercase"><a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/gpsd-scan.tgz" rel="external nofollow" class="" style="color:rgb(67,116,183);margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;line-height:inherit;font-family:inherit;text-decoration:none">ERIC S. RAYMOND</a></cite> <span class="">says:</span></div>
<div class="" style="font-size:11px;margin-bottom:13px"><a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/33874#comment-372240" style="color:rgb(67,116,183);margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;line-height:inherit;font-family:inherit;text-decoration:none">September 7, 2012 at 4:29 am</a></div>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 9px 18px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-family:inherit">I speak as founder and President Emeritus of the Open Source Initiative. The NC option in Creative Commons has always been a bad idea and should be removed.</p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 9px 18px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-family:inherit">The reasons it should be removed have nothing to do with any of the deep philosophico/political positions usually argued in the debate, and everything to do with the fact that there is no bright-line legal test for “commercial activity”. This ill-definedness is reflected in community debates about whether commercial means “cash transactions” or “for profit”, and it is the exact reason <b>the Open Source Definition forbids open-source software licenses from having such restrictions.</b></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 9px 18px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-family:inherit">The founding board of OSI, after studying the possibility, judged that an “NC” option in open-source licensing would create too much confusion about rights and restrictions, too many chilling effects on behaviors we did not want to discourage, and too many openings for vexatious litigation. What is only a source of contention within our community could prove very damaging to it if unsympathetic courts were to make even mildly adverse rulings.</p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 9px 18px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-family:inherit">I have seem no reason to change that judgment, and I think it applies with equal force to Creative Commons. The NC option is a dangerous trap and should be removed.</p>
</div></li></ol></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Catarina</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:12 PM, yahya <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yahya.tawil@gmail.com" target="_blank">yahya.tawil@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div class="im"><div><span style="color:rgb(194,123,160)">"This makes it sound like you like receiving the benefits of the "no
restrictions on selling" clause but you don't want to be bound to follow
it yourself."</span><br><br></div></div>That isn't true I contribute to open hardware community check my REPOs on <span></span><span></span><a href="https://github.com/yahyatawil?tab=repositories" target="_blank">github </a><br>
</div><b>maybe I must explain more this point :</b> what I mean that although there are situations that we can benefit form open hardware in commercial use (redistribution) ,there are another situations : (ex) I'm facing problem in making my designs allow commercial use because of cloners in my developing country , and I already have business on a local re-designed copy of arduino ! but I can't open It for cloners in my country they have efforts and money so if I made my design open under OSW definitions cloners would win easily .<br>
<br></div>So I suggest to make editions of OSH (commercial and non-commercial ) and let us make the designer defines which is suitable for <u>HIM not US .</u><div class="im"><br><br><span style="color:rgb(194,123,160)">"My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that you think of open source
hardware development primarily as a hobby. If someone wants to build a
business around it, then first and foremost they are building a
business, and that businesse's stand on IP is at best a secondary
concern."<br></span></div></div><span style="color:rgb(194,123,160)"><font color="#000000">If we said that , that will be disaster . How could we advocate OSW as an ecosystem and a economic alternative system and then we say is just a hobby ! <br>
<br></font></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(194,123,160)"><font color="#000000"><br></font></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(194,123,160)"><font color="#000000">with all respect <br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>
<span style="color:rgb(194,123,160)"><font color="#000000">Yahya <br></font></span></div><span style="color:rgb(194,123,160)"><font color="#000000"></font></span></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><div class="h5">
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Matt Maier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:blueback09@gmail.com" target="_blank">blueback09@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="h5">
<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM, yahya <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yahya.tawil@gmail.com" target="_blank">yahya.tawil@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div> </div></div></div>P.S : I've get alot of benifits from commercial distribution of openhardware circuits in my local community because difficulties of importing goods in my situation , but also our local community still beginner in OSW and there are a lot of cloners that mustn't give the ability to clone freely because the have resources and money in contrast of open hardwarians in my local community WHO need to make also commercial benifits of there open design .<br>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div></div></blockquote>
</div><div>This makes it sound like you like receiving the benefits of the "no restrictions on selling" clause but you don't want to be bound to follow it yourself. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are you suggesting some kind of size/resources distinction? Like, individuals can have the leeway to release their work "non-commercial" but businesses wouldn't?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the complications of extending software concepts/licenses to hardware is that it costs money just to look at hardware (shipping). If someone wants to do any kind of development work at all they have to start spending money right away, and the costs only increase as they begin to support a community. Open source hardware developers don't just need to be compensated eventually, they usually need to be compensated ahead of time so that they can afford the costs of building something in the first place (preorders). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thus, the argument that open source hardware requires commercial activity, so it can't be called open source (according to the definition) if it doesn't allow commercial activity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I've seen this argument come up a lot, and the more I see it the more I personally support the "no restrictions on selling" clause. Mostly because I have yet to see any examples of a developer actually being harmed by a cloner. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think the biggest reason is that most developers just aren't going to go into business at all. They might organize group-buys, and they might keep a supply of hard-to-find components, and they might be compensated for some of their work, but it's all just to defray the cost of their hobby. Most of them don't want the responsibility of customers and warranties and supply chains. If their hardware actually is good enough, and stable enough, to attract cloners then the cloners are doing the community a favor by taking on work that the developer wouldn't have done (running a business cuts into hacking time).</div>
<div><br>If someone wants to go into business designing/selling hardware then whether or not it's "open source" is not nearly as relevant as whether or not they can run a successful business. Competitors copying their products is only one of a ton of things working against them. Cloners don't care about IP law, particularly in hardware, where IP law doesn't matter as much. Cloners are constantly cloning the products from major corporations, so there's no way they're ever going to care about a "non-commercial" clause that some random developer added to their license. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>My suggestion, for what it's worth, is that you think of open source hardware development primarily as a hobby. If someone wants to build a business around it, then first and foremost they are building a business, and that businesse's stand on IP is at best a secondary concern. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>An example of this distinction in the wild is how Makerbot switched from open source to closed source when they committed to actually building a successful business out of their full-time hobby. Another example is that nearly everyone who announces that they're going to build open source hardware promises to release the source only after they begin shipping. Basically, before the thing actually exists and is functional the IP rules attached to it don't matter, at least not if you're running a business. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>That being said, I don't yet have harder data on the practical implications of this clause. It's something that I'm working on collecting. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Matt</div></div>
<br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org" target="_blank">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>