cc-patents AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: List for discussion of patent tools
List archive
[cc-patents] Fwd: [GOSH] FW: Creative Commons and Open Hardware
- From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure AT gmail.com>
- To: cc-patents AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: [cc-patents] Fwd: [GOSH] FW: Creative Commons and Open Hardware
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:18:57 -0500
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Juergen Neumann <j.neumann AT ergomedia.de>
Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Subject: [GOSH] FW: Creative Commons and Open Hardware
To: gosh AT piksel.no
Hi fellows,
please find here quotes from my recent exchange with John Wilbanks
from CC about OHANDA. Thanks to Chris and Ayah that we do now have at
least a clearer starting point for our following discussions. At this
point it is completely up to us whether and how to proceed with the
OHANDA and the emblem/TM - I think.
I want to share this with you, just to keep you updated and informed:
John Wilbanks wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> I've actually just been introduced to open hardware issues -
> we helped sponsor a little workshop last week on the topic
> in new york, organized by ayah bdeir of little bits.
> OHANDA came up several times during the day as a few of the
> participants were in Banff last year at your meeting.
>
> Creative Commons isn't likely to jump too deeply into this
> space - the trademark idea is an interesting one, but would
> need to be community owned, and not policed by an organization
> like CC. We're more interested in what legal tools we might
> have that can serve as implementations of community principles,
> much as our copyright licenses are used in the achievement
> of the principles of Open Access in the scholarly literature
> world.
> ...
> ... I'm sorry that CC wasn't receptive in the past, but I
> also think the reason for a slow response is that it's not
> immediately apparent how copyright licenses fit into the
> whole OH movement. The science division at CC, which I run,
> was the right place to contact and the connection never got
> made. But as I wrote Juergen, any meaningful OH declaration
> of freedoms must be community based, not CC based, and CC
> will not be the organization that hosts any trademarks
> that are non-abstract and generic. I.e., we can't host an "open
> hardware" mark - we can host marks like "open data" and
> "open patent" and "open copyright", but a meaningful OH mark
> will tie together all of these things and need to be policed
> by the open hardware community itself.
>
> It's safe to say that we're engaged in the community as an
> advocate for the commons as infrastructure for open hardware,
> and that we want to see how our existing tools serve the needs
> of open hardware and if we need to write new tools to serve the
> community. The OHANDA initiative itself is a very interesting
> approach that echoes a lot of thinking we've done around complex
> communities where there are multiple layers of property
> rights, many of which are completely orthogonal to each other.
>
> I agree completely on the need to harmonize the freedoms. I have
> seen real success in the open access movement
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access) through the
> creation of a set of commonly agreed definitions. There are three
> (Budapest, Berlin, Bethesda) that say essentially the same thing,
> but allowed three distinct groups to claim credit for the leadership
> they displayed. Hopefully we can compress that to one for OH but
> it won't be the end of the world if there are two, so long as they
> are in harmony on essential freedoms.
And here is my reply:
> Dear John,
>
> ...
> Thank you very much for taking you the time within all your
> troubles for replying.
> ...
> I very much appreciate your input!
>
> I am quite aware that we will not solve any of the deeper
> legal problems about opening up hardware as true open source
> hardware as with patents. It became clearer to me during the
> last months, that our approach is more or less not much more
> or less than a marketing emblem TOWARDS a more sustainable
> legal open source hardware solution.
>
> Still I think it will be worthwhile going for it. It will
> address the developers, manufacturers, hackers, users and
> buyers. Its intetion for the moment will be not much more
> than a clear signal towards users/consumers/hackers that the
> device inside "this box" is INTENDED to be open source
> hardware. And the term "open source hardware" still will not
> be clearly defined at the moment. Cause yes, we are in an
> early stage.
>
> But there are people developers and companies out there who
> will appreciate it, I believe. Still, it will definitely take
> more time to clearify how exactly we can shift the legal free
> open source paradigms towards the physical world - not just
> for electronics, but also drugs, machines, manufacturing and
> everything else.
>
> For now I think we will just move on with OHANDA and try to
> establish our emblem/TM. Let's see how companies will adopt
> it and whether or not it will make a difference in the
> consumers joice on the markets. At least in one direction the
> producer will grant the consumer the 4 freedoms and be
> absolut "hacker friendly" as defined in our presentation.
> Still any reuse will not implicitly and legaly enforced end
> up under the same terms and conditions as with GPL or
> likewise CC licenses for non physical IP. That's still the
> missing link which we can not solve with our approach, sadly.
>
> I would be happy to support your long term efforts on this
> with any help I can give. Let's keep in touch in see where
> things go. I'd be glad to talk to you more in detail once you
> feel sattled and will find the time for it.
>
> Very kindly,
>
>
> Juergen
_______________________________________________
GOSH mailing list
GOSH AT piksel.no
https://piksel.no/mailman/listinfo/gosh
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
- [cc-patents] Fwd: [GOSH] FW: Creative Commons and Open Hardware, Bryan Bishop, 03/24/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.