[cc-community] Open Hardware Licence

Stuart Naylor stuartiannaylor at hotmail.com
Fri May 8 22:19:16 EDT 2009


Hi All,

Apologies about the original post yeah it was me, mother says I will never change!

The debate has been great as it highlighted the great divide in the validity of Open Source Hardware. It all seems little to close to a matter of faith to myself and some seem to be fervent others agnostic. As to the great GPL in the sky I get the feeling that legally without precedent means its anybodies game.

Please keep your input rolling in as it has been it has most helpful. I am going to progress with a web site under maybe a creative commons attribute licence and document all code, HDL and protocol in one hit.

The reason I say that is because nothing is set in stone and legalities and Licensing so please keep making suggestions. If nothing happens I will eventually let it go Public Domain.

Many Thanks

Stuart

StuartIanNaylor at HotMail.Com
 



> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 18:20:29 -0500
> From: email at greglondon.com
> To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] Open Hardware Licence
> 
> > Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 17:24:42 +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: <20090508172442.57ec5cec at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> >>> Seriously? You're lecturing me about "freedom" and
> >> how my "opinion" needs to subjugate to FSF's
> >> "long time to formulate its viewpoints",
> >> and you don't even understand the problem????
> >
> > I'm not arguing that you have to agree with the FSF (merely pointing you
> > seemed to have no clue where they came from), and yes I do understand the
> > problem, and I do know how chip design works.
> >
> >> Because the silicon is not a copyright derivative.
> >
> > I was hoping that by asking how you saw it I'd get an explanation of your
> > viewpoint which would feed into a useful debate.
> 
> You want useful debate? then you shouldn't have gone on some
> spanish inquisition attacking me because you didn't like my
> OPINION of FSF, which had NOTHING to do with helping anyone
> get a hardware license.
> 
> I was explaining to folks the issues around licensing hardware,
> which is what this thread was about. I explained how most
> copyleft licenses don't protect hardware because hardware
> isn't a derivative and most copyleft licenses require distribution
> of the derivative.
> 
> I then mention that I wrote FSF asking for some help, either
> in the form of a license they might already have that would
> protect hardware or if they would possibly be interested in
> modifying an existing license. Instead of helping me find any
> sort of solution, they sent me a long email about how I should
> call it "Free" hardware instead of "Open" hardware.
> 
> Now I've got you doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
> 
> You're NOT HELPING ANYONE find a solution to their hardware
> licensing question.
> 
> Instead, you've taken it upon yourself to lecture me how
> it is JUST MY OPINION that FSF's failure to answer my question
> and lecture me about vocabular MISSED THE POINT. No, you tell
> me, FSF has a long and glorious history and we should prostrate
> ourselves before them.
> 
> DID YOU HELP ME OR ANYONE ELSE WITH THAT RUBBISH?
> 
> NO.
> 
> You're on your soapbox, defending some perceived attack on FSF
> that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of how to
> license hardware under some kind of copyleft license that
> provides any sort of real protection.
> 
> APSL is the only license I know of that can protect hardware
> similar to the way software is protected by something like
> GNU-GPL.
> 
> Do you have anything to contribute to THAT discussion?
> 
> or are you going to ride your hobby horse around some more
> and chastize me simply because I don't worship FSF as
> all-knowing, infinite, and wise like you do?
> FSF is human. FSF is fallible. FSF has their own hobby horses
> just like anyone else. FSF doesn't neccessarily have a
> hardware person's best interests in mind.
> 
> Deal. with. it.
> 
> You wanna invoke the spanish inquisition on me just because
> you think I'm some kind of FSF heretic? Because I don't worship
> their religion? Email me offline, cause it's got nothing to
> do with anyone getting a real open hardware license that
> offers any sort of legitimate protection.
> 
> So far, APSL is the only license that comes close.
> Hardware licensign is the topic fo the thread.
> 
> You wanna keep the thread to "useful debate" then
> drop the FSF religion bullshit and deal with hardware licensing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

_________________________________________________________________
View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more!
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20090509/ee1ac715/attachment.htm 


More information about the cc-community mailing list