Let me rephrase that: it brings no value to the design itself. An led circuit by goofy123 is not more valuable than an identical circuit mady by furball456 so to speak.
So this should not be part of a licence. The name of the inventor serves no functional purpose. Not being allowed to copy it for money does serve a functional purpose.
You are just creating a specific case straw man argument.
But ok, you win, in that case where someone "invents" a circuit that has been done before and slaps their name and an OSHW license on it, that's not adding value.But
, even in that case, if you were searching for a circuit that did X and you found it on that persons website or wherever with their name on it, then you have benefited from them
publishing that information that you found. Even if that circuit is not original.
I you genuinely came up with the idea yourself, or "know it's always been around", or whatever and did not get your circuit, or part of your circuit) from that person or project, then I doubt the OSHW community will not take your word for it and go around accusing you of stealing the design. The community isn't that anal. These things can be argued successfully if you are ever challenged about them by the community. No one in their right mind would think the exaples you give are "protected" because someone slapped an OSHW on an existing building block circuit.
But we are down to arguing specific cases here.
Something was released under sharealike or 'give back' terms. I took the design , modded it , fixed some design flaws and greatly improved it with my idea's. Why should i need to disclose the techniques or tricks or idea's i came up with. If i want to do so, fine no problem. Of i want to keep that know-how for me, equally fine. The freedom to share, or not to share. The licenceing terms take away that freedom. Less freedom is less 'open'.. Public domain does not step on this freedom.
The key phrase you used there is "I took the design".
someone else's design!
In that case they have every right to ask that you respect whatever license or rules they released it under so that you could benefit
If you don't like that, then that's your choice, don't go looking at and taking stuff from OSHW licensed designs to begin with.
But again, the community isn't that anal here.
For example, if you looked at an OSHW schematic and saw a small part
of a circuit you liked, then I don't think anyone would argue that you are obligated to follow the license.
OSHW is more about the bigger picture.
Let's say someone makes a schematic with an led and a resistor containing the formula to calculate a value of the resistor for a given supply voltage. This schematic is released under this open source stuff as a CC-BA-something
that means from now on , anyone that 'builds upon' needs to release his mods ?
No, the community is not that anal.
My OSHW uCurrent for example is essentially just an op-amp and a resistor in a box. The circuit is not new, the concept is not new, and I'm sure no one (including me) in the OSHW community thinks that an op-amp and a resistor current sensor is now a circuit that is "protected" in some way. It's not.
No one will care if you use a small part of that circuit in some small part of some unrelated product.
But if you produce a product of similar but improved functionality
and sell it commercially to the same target market for the same use and lock away the design based on that circuit then you can bet people will see that as not playing fair.
The uCurrent is a good example were you'd have to pretty much copy the whole circuit and concept to get nailed by the OSHW community police, because it's such a basic building block circuit.
Sure, the resistor led example is stupid , but where do you draw the line ?
The line will usually be pretty clear, because the community will let you know.
This is the problem i see with these licences. They claim rights on circuitry that is trivial and or straight out of the datasheet.
Not so much. They are simply trying to encourage sharing and giving back, and that
is the big attraction of OSHW.
As I've said before, the OSHW mechanism is not perfect, and has lots of potential issues, and I will admit that your concerns are genuine and warranted. But the fact is that it has worked and encouraged sharing on a massive scale that we haven't seen in this industry before. So you try and work with the system that has proven to work, even if it is based on a potential bed of "what if" legal mumbo jumbo.
Especially the 'build upon' clause is very dangerous. Build upon works symmetrically as well. Take the ftdi away and it still fits the description.. So now any circuit consisting of an atmega and a crystlal is considered 'built upon' an arduino ...
Show me one case where that has happened.
Fact is that virtually no one sues anyone in the OSHW business, and legal frameworks are no enforced. If more of a warm fuzzy legal based way to encourage people to share stuff.
OSHW or no OSHW, anyone can get sued at anytime, for anything, that is a fact of life.
You can't just look at the "what if's" of the OSHW license legal nitty gritty, because it's much, much bigger than that. You have to look at the big picture.