Re: gEDA-user: Draft Licence for Open Source Hardware published (OT)

[John Griessen <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave N6NZ wrote:
 So (thinking out loud) maybe some kind of license that says
> the file format documentation *and* sources (or mirror pointers) for all the development tools 
> are a required part of the distribution source.

Yes, that kind of language would help get the work out there, and so help enlist collaboration,
which is often the main reason we freepublish.  This may be OT here, but there's
another place it would be welcome disussion.  See below.

--------------------------------
asomers@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I too _want_ a 100% open source tool chain, but it's not going to
> happen anytime soon and I don't think it's appropriate to insist upon
> it in a license.

<snip>

 I'm not sure how one would require an open-source
> toolchain in a software license.  Remember, we are talking about
> licenses, not contracts.  A license can only grant privileges; it
> cannot restrict a user more than copyright law already restricts.

Really, when talking of hardware, it has to be contract law.
Copyright is not enough, and patents get involved.
A man on the openmanufacturing list had a 40 minute talk with an IP lawyer
the other week and he licenses his transcript CC, so we can all freely look,
at least for now... Not sure if Wolf Greenfield OK'd its publishing,
so don't mirror it anywhere, OK?

--------------------legal advice transcript---------------------------
http://designfiles.org/~bryan/2010-07-01_open-source-hardware_and_patent-law.html<http://designfiles.org/%7Ebryan/2010-07-01_open-source-hardware_and_patent-law.html>

title: Conversation on open source hardware and patent law with Wolf Greenfield
author: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@xxxxxxxxx>
license: cc-by-sa 3.0 unported
duration: 40min 49sec
date: 2010-07-01
links: openmanufacturing.org, diybio.org, heybryan.org

The gist of Bryan's listening to that lawyer is that the attorney
would probably still use patents to document some things, but anything that
is already being openly shared he would workup a defnse based on contract law
and trade secrets being worthless, (and thus not contractual), once they are published.
--------------------legal advice transcript---------------------------

Ales has asked us not to talk patents, so for further
discussion, I know a place that is not worried about software patent discussions,
since they mostly talk of systems of HS and SW.

Here's an example of discussion going on now about this same draft:

---------- openmanufacturing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Re: Open Hardware Creative Commons Draft
To: "Hard- and Software Development, Kernel, Distribution, Roadmap" <
developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


On Thursday 15 July 2010 15:46:21 Carlos Camargo wrote:
> > Another topic is the hardware cost, you can release a hardware project
that
> > use 12 layer PCB, (...) complicated and expensive mounting techniques.

If we take those into account, the whole open hardware thing will be limited
to 1. low-tech stuff and/or 2. using proprietary pre-built modules (the
Arduino is a good example of these two points).

There should be no limit whatsoever on the technical level of open hardware
projects. Otherwise, it'll either remain something 3 nerds do in their
garage
<snip>
---------- openmanufacturing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Forwarded message ----------

John Griessen
--
Ecosensory   Austin TX


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user