<p dir="ltr">And even in that case not all of the project files could be copyrightable in some countries depending on the local legislation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In my country for example the source code of a firmware and the manual could be copyrightable but not the mechanical diagrams or blueprints because they doesn't necessary represent a "creative work" but are more like a description of an invention or specific implementation that is already protected by patents.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think that RMS said once that we cannot talk really about free/open hardware but really about "documented hardware" as he calls it, because not all the concepts and ideas behind free/open hardware can be translated to the hardware context.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards,<br>
Mario.<br></p>
<div class="gmail_quot<blockquote class=" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I think that part of what's confusing people is that the community constantly uses phrases like "the project." <div>
<br></div><div>In software that's fine, because "the project" only refers to one relevant type of thing. But in hardware, "the project" refers to two things that are distinctly different: the digital plans and the physical item. </div>
<div><br></div><div>In a practical sense, the digital plans are the only thing which has any legal protection. So when we talk about the license applied to "the project" we are ONLY talking about the digital files, but that distinction seems to be lost on a lot of people. The license only extends to the physical item in the sense that it's polite to respect the wishes of the original creator. <br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Using a better qualified phrase like "the project files" would be a good habit to adopt. That way it's clear that the license, whether it's CC or something else, is only attached to the digital stuff.</div>
<div><br></div><div>That might also encourage more people to actually pick a license since so often nobody builds the physical thing for themselves anyway. Usually they just buy it from the creator or, if it gets popular, a clone.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:trox@fabfolk.com" target="_blank">trox@fabfolk.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Taking the usual precautions (ianal, tinla), I think there are at least two issues at hand. One is the incompatibility of open and cc-options (as you point out), the second is the incompatibility of hardware with copyright.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(1) I guess you’ve summarized it to the point: anything else than cc-by, cc-by-sa and CC0 is not in the spirit of whatever-we-call-it-(but-preferrably-not-open-source)</div><div><br></div><div>(2) hardware (oversimplified: “useful things”) is not automatically “protected” by “IP” legislation (much different to “beautiful things” that are automatically “protected” by copyright on publication) ... so a license is non-sensical (as “license” means: you are allowed to do what normally would be prohibited), and there is debate if “open hardware licenses” are legally meaningful or void (that’s what I understand from the legal discussion).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Nonetheless, even if a hardware license is (legally) nonsense, it is a communication device to signal “that’s who I mean my stuff to be handled”. But on that level, ie. when the legal meaning is void anyway, the NC and ND clauses become different animals. And that’s worth looking into. Still we need to acknowledge that legally (and aiming for what you call open source) they are utter rubbish. And maybe even on communication-face-level they are rubbish too (e.g. NC meaning that “if somebody is making money off it I want my fair share” -- vs. “If you are not able to extract money from your brilliant thing you’re maybe just not as brilliant as you think, at least commercially”)</div>
<div><br></div><div><div><div><div>On 21 May 2014, at 23:33, alicia <<a href="mailto:amgibb@gmail.com" target="_blank">amgibb@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div dir="ltr"><div>New Blog Post on OSHWA to clarify which Creative Commons licenses are compatible with open source: </div><a href="http://www.oshwa.org/2014/05/21/cc-oshw/" target="_blank">http://www.oshwa.org/2014/05/21/cc-oshw/</a><br>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Alicia</div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________<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></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></div>