<div dir="ltr">I think the OSHWA need's to come up with it's own OSHW appropriate license. It would help a lot of the confusion surrounding OSHW.<div><br></div><div>Some people think it is already a license itself.</div>
<div><br></div><div><p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><a name="SafeHtmlFilter__MailAutoSig">Regards,</a></p><p>Mike Eber<br><br></p><img src="http://www.makertronic.com/makertronic-email-logo.png"><br><p><a href="http://www.twitter.com/Makertronic" target="_blank">@Makertronic</a><br>
1221 Flower Mound Road, Suite 320-102<br>Flower Mound, TX 75028</p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jeffrey Warren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeff@publiclab.org" target="_blank">jeff@publiclab.org</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">I just wanted to clarify that while there is ongoing discussion of how enforceable various OH licenses are going to be, there are plenty of people who think they're possible and workable, and have been developing mechanisms to make up for the lack of direct copyrightability of hardware. A careful reading of the CERN OHL and the discussions that led up to its drafting and revision make it pretty clear that these licenses were not developed in ignorance of IP law. <div>
<br></div><div>But I think your comment "...<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">we need to acknowledge that legally (and aiming for what you call open source) they are utter rubbish." referred to the Non-Commercial clauses, not the legal basis of open hardware licensing, right?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:trox@fabfolk.com" target="_blank">trox@fabfolk.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><div><div class="h5"><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></div></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><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-autospace:none"><a name="SafeHtmlFilter__MailAutoSig">Regards,</a></p>
<p>Mike
Eber<br>
<br>
</p>
<img src="http://www.makertronic.com/makertronic-email-logo.png"><br>
<p><span><a href="http://www.twitter.com/Makertronic" target="_blank">@Makertronic</a><br></span>1221 Flower Mound Road, Suite 320-102<br>Flower Mound, TX 75028</p></div>
</div>