[cc-community] Open Hardware Licence

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu May 7 21:12:12 EDT 2009


On Thursday 07 May 2009 17:02:39 Greg London wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 16:40:15 +0100
> > From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> > Subject: Re: [cc-community] Open Hardware Licence
> > To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > Cc: email at greglondon.com
> > Message-ID: <20090507164015.6b391b4c at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> >> If you want copyleft style protection on hardware code
> >> I think you need to use APSL. If you use anything else,
> >> you're pretty much putting it in the public domain
> >> because most licenses don't trigger because the source
> >> code is never distributed by the vendor.
> >
> > The AGPLv3 addresses it for software in some cases but not generally-
>
> I contacted FSF a year or two ago about using AGPLv3 for hardware.
> The wording of AGPLv3 is explicit about software used for webhosting,
> the host making modifications, the modifications being held private,
> and that copyleft applies to that specific instance.
>
> Not really applicable to a similar but different problem like hardware.
>
> They did not recommend using AGPLv3 for hardware, which was what
> I expected. I asked if they had any licenses that would cover
> open hardware or if they might consider making a new license
> that covered open hardware. They said "no", and spent a whole
> lot of time explaining to me why I shouldn't call it "open"
> hardware instead of calling it "free", which soooo missed the point.

Greg, that may be the case, but if you have paid attention to their take on 
Free Software versus Open Source Software, surely you could have guessed this 
response and called it Free hardware in advance if your purpose was to have a 
productive discussion with them. (It does seem to be one of their "hot 
button" issues after all.)
>
> > however I would strongly suggest talking to an IP expert before trying to
> > apply any of the software licences to non software - they can blow up in
> > spectacular ways.
>
> APSL uses generic language. Any derivative must be made public
> and must be copylefted with teh APSL license. This was intended
> to fill the "hole" with web server software, but by prohibiting
> private derivatives, it also works with hardware source code.
>
> Richard Stallman seems to be attached to "private derivatives"
> that are not subject to copyleft. Probably because his business
> model runs off of having everyone who works on his code assign
> rights to him, which he can then create derivatives of, and
> sell to someone under a non-copyleft license.

He explains it as a right to privacy and I am happy to take him at hisword 
unless proof of other motives surfaces. Do you have any? Does RMS or the FSF 
sell derivatives of GNU softare that is GPL for the public to others under 
non-Free licenses? Doesn't seem to make sense as since they get the copyright 
assignments in the first place, they do not need any right to private 
derivatives to do so, and in fact, the private derivatives would not apply as 
they distribute according to what I gather you to be saying. Am I missing 
some simple and key point here Greg?
>
> So, (1) I wouldn't hold my breath for FSF to come out with
> a "no private derivatives" license like APSL and (2) I would
> take any of FSF's advice on such a license with a grain of salt,
> because they're not going to like something that conflicts with
> their income.

Can you explain this income you speak of? What are they doing here that I 
don't know about?

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list