<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
08/07/2016 14:35, Matt Maier :<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+S82DrMd-Lv8K03ACW5m-wEuRfoXgE8+365J6vMKH2YN-+0VA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">We need to keep explaining this stuff, over and over
again</blockquote>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">07/07/2016 23:49, Nancy Ouyang :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALNtCMmc_MosQy_t=7GkJTPn=t92Wk9H=XXWxs2qEF340MMS8A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>We might even make a webpage,</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><b>which license do you want?</b></li>
<ul>
<li>oshwa: copyleft</li>
<li>cc0 public domain: don't care</li>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ohwr.org/projects/cernohl/wiki">CERN
OHL</a>: ??? I know nothing about it</li>
<li><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.opencompute.org/blog/request-for-comment-ocp-hardware-license-agreement/">open
compute license</a>: ???</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">08/07/2016 14:08, Javier Serrano :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:a1c812d1-53c5-09a1-299b-e0ff5cf71183@cern.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This
means that when I license a design under the CERN OHL, you, as the
licensee, can be sure I will never sue you for patent infringement if
you e.g. manufacture and sell hardware based on the design files. You
don't get that reassurance when you use a Creative Commons license.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nancy, Matt, Javier, and all,<br>
<br>
I also have the feeling we should better explain what is possible,
not possible, secured, not secured, regarding usages of licences and
effects of certifications, when somebody wants to port FLOSS
practices into the world of the manufacturing of things made with
atoms.<br>
<br>
Indeed, as I've already told you, we run in France, along the past
10 days during two events in France (Pas Sage En Seine Hacker Space
Festival, and SummerLab Nantes 2016), a serial of 7 short
presentations: 15-20mn presenting the topic, the possibilities, the
known issues and wrong practices; followed by 20-45mn of free talks
with participants (main of them was people coming from Hacklabs or
FabLabs). And I was very surprised to hear what people said. Here is
bellow, a summary of what I heard, in five points.<br>
<br>
§- First: even if they are aware about FLOS licences, thanks to
their Lab community, they still make wrong reasoning about the
effect that could have FLOS licence on exploitations capable of
industrial applications. They still think that FLOS licences have an
effect on exploitations capable of industrial applications. And it
is really wrong: FLOS licences have no effect on manufacturings -
except for immediately visible aesthetic designs in only certain
special cases.<br>
<br>
§- Second: they think that an individual using an OHL licence (TAPR
or CERN), will generate automatically effects on manufacturings made
by any manufacturers around using the documentation placed under OHL
licence. And it is really wrong: OHL licences generate this corridor
only between professionals - merchant or non-merchant organizations
- who deal together including OHL licence in their agreements
processes. The law giving this possibility, is not copyright law,
but other laws which are activate between those professionals.<br>
<br>
§- Third: they think that a publication under FLOS licences or OHL
licence across any web site, will give them a way to avoid a future
patent declaration by any actor. And it is really wrong: without
previous research of patent, they may publish a thing which is
already a patent, and whatever a publication across a web site, it
will not avoid somebody to ask for a patent for the part which is
patentable.<br>
<br>
§- Fourth: they think that putting their creations under FLOS
licences or OHL licences, will give them a way to avoid a
competition with actors that they don't like. And that is really
really really wrong: searching to open knowledge, is a sort of "gift
for humanity" where anybody will have the possibility to use it,
copy it, etc ... Then, searching this, is like to create a sort of
hyper-competition environment. And that is exactly the opposite of
what those people hope to create using an openness process. They
discover after some explanations, that the portage of FLOS practices
into atom world, will generate corridors of "fans" - like Fair
Trade, Organic, etc ... - and get this picture of possibility to get
a smart place next to price competition positioning players.<br>
<br>
§- Fifth: they think it is impossible to make experimentations into
fablabs with things which are under patent, because of those
patents. That is really wrong: anybody could make any
experimentations with things that are under patent, until this
experimentation keeps an experimentation and do not serve any
exploitations capable of industrial applications. In hacklabs, any
body could continue to experiment with patent or non-patent things.<br>
<br>
According to this, I really think we should, 1) involve the accuracy
of the information available, and 2) increase numbers of short
moments to presentation this new reality in progress.<br>
<br>
Should we launch a work on this together ?<br>
How could it be done ?<br>
<br>
Love and Peace,<br>
Freely,<br>
Antoine C.<br>
</body>
</html>