[cc-community] Open Hardware Licence

Alan Cox alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Fri May 8 11:17:38 EDT 2009


> Because the physical chip is not a copyright derivative.

How does copyright law apply to the chip in the first place - derivative
or not ?

> Which means NO OPEN HARDWARE PROJECT is really
> protected by any of the copyleft features if
> they're licensed GNU-GPL.

Tricky - I've seen lawyers argue both ways on some of this, and I know of
no caselaw either - but I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea how it would
pan out. I'd certainly spend some time with one rather than on this list
if I cared enough.

> at the same level as open software, then
> open hardware MUST prohibit private derivatives.
> i.e. APSL.

If it in fact does that for hardware. I've had this same problem with
trying to find "GPLlike" licensing of etched models. At least in my case
the etch itself is a creative work so copyright does apply, a lot of
hardware doesn't even have that luxury.

> Either that, or someone has to make a special
> license geared specifically towards hardware
> source code and physical manifestations of
> that code, similar to the AGPLv3 has specific
> language in it to deal with webhost companies
> making derivatives, usign them on public websites,
> but not distributing the actual derivative.

There is a real need for a general purpose licensing system for physical
objects as and when you get replicators in the hands of the public at low
prices. However licenses are built on laws and reading some of the
research work on it gives me the uncomfortable feeling that the
established law itself expires in a heap at this point in just the same
way as it once did with records, radio, software and other new ideas

Combine a $1000 3D printer with a cheap laser 3D scanner and you enter a
very peculiar world that we simply don't know how to deal with and which
is going to hurt.

> > To the best of my knowledge the FSF doesn't
> > make any money customizing software themselves.
> 
> I recall way back in the trilobyte era of computers
> and free software that FSF would require that people
> who wanted to work with FSF on their software were
> required to sign an agreement reassigning their rights
> to FSF.

Correct - but that is to enable enforcement action to be taken more
easily. Your rights to modify and distribute modified versions are not
conditional on doing that anyway so it doesn't always occur.

The whole lack of certainty on class action copyright lawsuits would be
another topic for a lawyer ...

Alan


More information about the cc-community mailing list