Reality of OSHW

[nctnico]

All this 'open source' license stuff is bullshit

"you can copy it provided my name stays attached (so i can have my 5 minutes of fame)"
"provided you don't make money" (if it don't make any everyone should be poor)
"if you correct my flagrant design flaws you need to tell me.. " (they call that 'giving back to the community' , a weak cover for 'fix my problems')
"you need to provide all documentation in a format of my liking or i will growl" ... (i'm too lazy / poor to learn or use real tools)

Want to give it away ? make it public domain. That, for me, is the only true 'open' format.
no strings attached , can't sue me , do what you want.
anything else is not truly open.

As Dave already -more-or-less- pointed out 'open source' is about creating an eco system for a project which is maintained by several people and/or companies who have a shared motive to create something. Giving back to the community is one of the primary rules for something like that to work. It's like if I have meat and you have vegetables we can have a good stew for dinner. Sometimes 1+1=3.

[abaxas]

To give something away but retain certain rights is probably the worst situation for most designs. Unless something is suitably complicated it's almost all been done before so the license is invalid.

Ie if the Chinese wanted to rip off Dave's uCurrent, it would be almost impossible to enforce the license as the circuit is a reference design and has been covered 1000x of times before.

The reality is that most OS/OH projects use the license for vanity purposes.

[EEVblog]

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".
You took 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 from it!
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.

[EEVblog]

That is what I believe is the reality of OSHW is,  but tbh I'm not really a "OSHW" fan myself;  I much prefer the concept of just putting it out there.

And that's great, and I've done that with stuff too.
What I don't understand is people shooting it down. If you don't like the way OSHW hardware works, then don't use the name or logo, just do whatever you want. Most people in the OSHW industry would say more power to you.

[WackyGerman]

Well I thing OSHW is a really good thing , everybody can fix what he want and give it to the next and the other one can look and upgrade if nessesary . Well making $$ with it is not the goal . The journey is the reward 

[madires]

Licences like GPL or EUPL (which I prefer for it's simplicity) aren't useless, they provide a legal framework including things like reliabilty, which is quite important. Some open source organizations even file suits against companies violating those licences and win. We had several sentences forcing SOHO router vendors to disclose their firmware code because it's based on linux.

But there are also situations where a copyright or a licence won't help. I'm involved in the Transistortester project. You'll find tons of Chinese clones at ebay and not a single seller provides a proper documentation or the URL of the original one. Neither do they give any credits, some even modify the firmware to display their name. It doesn't make any sense to go after them or to report them to ebay. For what purpose? If the buyers are looking for a new firmware version or the documentation, they'll come to the project's site sooner or later anyway. And I don't mind if some Chinese make a few bucks. Actually, that's free promotion for the project

[hans]

And that's where it rubs...  I gave the second example. I make a little led light: battery, switch , resistor , led. Sell this for 3$ in volume. All of a sudden i get hammered by some dude that claims 'rights' because i 'built upon' his led-resistor circuit.

Sure, the resistor led example is stupid , but where do you draw the line ? If i make a circuit with an atmega, crystal, ftdi and usb connector .. That does not make it an arduino ... Even though the wiring is identical. Well, there is only so many ways you can add a crystal and an ftdi to an atmega....

This is the problem i see with these licences. They claim rights on circuitry that is trivial and or straight out of the datasheet.
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 ...

That is what i don't like.

People are riling against patents, well, this is an even bigger can of worms.

Imagine what would have happened if someone had claimed cc-sharealike attributable on print 'hello world'...

Any book about programming, any program ever written that printed a string of characters to any output system would be subject to that licence....
Whoa....

I think you need consider the use-case as well. You're talking raw components here, not how the product is used.

If you talk raw circuits then most projects aren't really that interesting or unique. No product has a brilliant unique new circuit anymore - it's all based on already existing stuff found in datasheets, app notes, eval boards, the competitors product, or a mix of those things.
For example; a big difference I noticed between college and "work" is that copying in college is the biggest sin ever.. and in work it's (mostly) not. As long as you get the job done, and it's done right.

We all use the same or similar parts, in similar ways and we all use the same UART pins.. because there aren't many other ways to do it. Why do you think the claims would be on that? Especially by a community that wants to act very open.

A positive difference is that OSHW projects would be that it adds as a design source.. in what ways have circuits been put to use? What have other people tried for solving a particular problem?

To take your example.. what if you were making that LED light but thought "this switch costs me money - you can turn the LED off if you take the battery out of it's holder". You remove the switch, save $0.25 but you can't operate the LED light in the dark anymore because you can't see the polarity of the battery holder. Doh.

If you sold your project commercially, completely closed, I would respond with: "the bastards saved 25cts on a damn switch - It's useless now!"
If the project was OSHW, someone may actually come along and post a follow-up idea of adding that switch. Why would he be ashamed that he couldn't figure out the LED driver circuit and copied that part? There are tons of industries that turn around with copied designs..

Or wait.. another variant: you sell a "deluxe" version that costs way more for just that single switch. I reckon; if it's a commercial product you would see "hacks" everywhere. "How to hack your LED light to deluxe version for just a fraction of the cost!" Take for example many of the Rigol & Agilent scopes or Flir camera's. Bought capable hardware, but limited by software options? Bullshit - give me that.

I don't see a difference except morally.

[Laertes]

Want to give it away ? make it public domain. That, for me, is the only true 'open' format.
no strings attached , can't sue me , do what you want.
anything else is not truly open.

Well, thing is, that may be possible in the US, but in other countries, public domain doesn't exist. I know for a fact that's the case in Germany and Austria, but I think there's quite a few European countries without the legal concept of releasing something to public domain.

So, in the german copyright, if you create something that can possibly be copyrighted(i.e. isn't already there, basically), you cannot forfeit your rights to it. You can put it under an open-source license, but if you don't, you have every right to the thing, even if you published it and you didn't put a restricted license on it explicitly, you might well be able to sue for licensing fees if someone uses it.
So if you want to build something and maybe you make a bit of money of it, you can only use stuff that you have a proper license to use, because otherwise you cannot be sure the original creator doesn't sue the hell out of you if your little project does take off and make you a million bucks...

That's really the beauty of proper open source licenses: they give you a serious legal framework where you do not actually need to worry about it. This kind of environment is greatly established with open source software, when you read GPL somewhere you know: I can take this and modify it and use it and nobody's gonna raise any fuss about it if I put the authors name somwhere in the comments of the source

[free_electron]

That is what I believe is the reality of OSHW is,  but tbh I'm not really a "OSHW" fan myself;  I much prefer the concept of just putting it out there.

And that's great, and I've done that with stuff too.
What I don't understand is people shooting it down. If you don't like the way OSHW hardware works, then don't use the name or logo, just do whatever you want. Most people in the OSHW industry would say more power to you.

It's not so much shooting it down. It's asking : why and what's the point ? You may argue it encourages sharing and giving back. Maybe. For others, the mere fact there is a legal framework with a bunch of rules is a turn-off.
I still prefer the Public Domain clause. Only that is freedom.

[miguelvp]

Not really OSHW but the software that is used in here:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dreamsourcelab/dslogic-multifunction-instruments-for-everyone

So in the comments, just yesterday the following appeared:

Dear DreamSource Lab,
Once again you have taken software from the sigrok project, removed all mentions of sigrok and the project name, and presented it as your own work. This happened when you originally released your libsigrok/PulseView binaries, and we told you clearly then that this was not acceptable.
You've done this again now with fx2lafw, and released it as "DSLogic-fw". I must request that you immediate restore the original copyright notices, and make clear that this is fx2lafw, a sigrok project.

Git Hub:
https://github.com/DreamSourceLab

They have three depots:
https://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogic
https://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogic-fw
and
https://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogic-hdl

I've not verified the claim is right but I guess if someone has time to look at the code they could decide.

The point is that sharing sometimes can be taken advantage off if the claim they took the code and gave no credit and changed the copyright to themselves is true.


Edit: looked for a little bit and they do have some similarities but not really, then again I didn't look in detail here is the other git hub:

https://gitorious.org/sigrok/libsigrok/source/7ee8a00a3c455ea61a857cd3a35ee0010b3b7d89:hardware/fx2lafw

That this source is supposed to be based on:

https://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogic-fw

hmm open source wars, what next?

[T3sl4co1l]

Well, thing is, that may be possible in the US, but in other countries, public domain doesn't exist. I know for a fact that's the case in Germany and Austria, but I think there's quite a few European countries without the legal concept of releasing something to public domain.

[...]

Droit d’auteur, an interesting subject.  I kind of like the idea.  I guess we have sort-of the same thing, with automatic copyright -- but it's not the same, not as fundamental, or morally motivated.  In European law, it's a fundamental right of the individual.  I think that's cool.

I would suppose, if you wanted to take your issue to court, you could make similar arguments -- courts are generally aware of, and sensible to, historical and moral arguments, even if they aren't precisely what's on the books at that time.  So in that respect, even though it's not U.S. law, you could potentially follow such an approach, and have a chance of winning on it.  But you'd better have a better lawyer than your opponent, too...

Tim

[f5r5e5d]

Software is subject to copyright

Hardware that's not patented has no protection, anything that gets published and not filed on by the authors within 1 year is public domain

as far as I know this lack of protection, free use of prior art, established by publication or sale of the innovation containing hardware without a patent is a universal in patent law - prior art is barred from patent protection - you're not supposed to be able to get a patent for prior art - establishing that something is in fact prior art is an effective defense in a patent suit

and of course patents expire - some are abandoned when maintenance fees aren't paid and become unenforceable even sooner

[zapta]

That's really the beauty of proper open source licenses: they give you a serious legal framework where you do not actually need to worry about it. This kind of environment is greatly established with open source software, when you read GPL somewhere you know: I can take this and modify it and use it and nobody's gonna raise any fuss about it if I put the authors name somwhere in the comments of the source

Well said.

Serious companies will not touch third party source without a very clear legal status and having standard open source licenses makes the process much easier since chances are they were already reviewed and approved/rejected by the Legal department.

I have been involved with projects that use external open source software and the rules are very clear. Some licenses are pre approved, others are pre denied and good luck convincing Legal with the rest.  Once used, the external open source stuff is checked in a third party 'sandbox' and never get mingled with original material. When a product is released, it is analyzed for open source dependency and made compliant with the relevant open source licenses. Without standard open source licenses any adoption would be a legal nightmare.

[Poe]

I would like to narrow the topic if I can.

Some people are confusing this topic with open source SOFTWARE, others think these licenses include patents, and still others are really just defending the idea of 'open source' or defending their definition of it.

I made this post to clarify the legal aspect.   Mostly because I see ridiculous comments about 'legal frameworks' and insinuations that OSHW licenses somehow provide legal protection.  Reference this silly infographic on the OSHW Assc website:
http://www.oshwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/what-is-open-source-hardware.jpg
"Open source hardware gives people the freedom (they already had) to control (how exactly?) their technology while sharing knowledge (didn't need a license for that) and encouraging commerce (...what now?) through the open exchange of designs (how does that work, exactly?)."


Although the term "Open Source Hardware" means different things to most people, terminology is important.  Here's the OSHW Assc definition, FAQ, checklist and one of the licenses:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
http://www.oshwa.org/definition/
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_f25OKVb0TCb3BKQ053RV9DcU0&usp=sharing

Notice that..
- If your project contains software, they recommend selecting an open source SOFTWARE license SEPARATE from your OSHW license.
- Patents are not covered.  Nor would any sane person try to partially control a patent in that way.
- They imply that only if you meet their definitions can your project be considered "open source hardware".  They don't recognize that there could be other definitions..
This arrogant attitude is/was common with other 'open source hardware' organizations. 

Practically this all boils down to...

1. Software is protected by copyright law.  THAT is why it's a 'thing' and OSHW is not.  If you want large companies (the only entities who care about copyright) to use your CODE, you should probably select an appropriate open source SOFTWARE license.

2. THERE IS NO "LEGAL FRAMEWORK" for hardware designs.
Unlike software, hardware DESIGNS are not legally protected by copyright law or OSHW licenses.   Legally, the only way to restrict someone from copying/modifying/selling your hardware DESIGN is to patent a novel component of the design then sue them.  You can ONLY legally sue them if your design is patented.  ONLY if it is patented.  You can NOT sue someone for copying a hardware design 'protected by an OSHW license'.  THAT is why 'no OSHW businesses sue anyone'.  There is no legal enforcement behind an OSHW license.  Worst outcome, a bad reputation in the 'OSHW community'..... if that matters to you (it shouldn't because it doesn't matter to them).

3. Legally, OSHW licenses can only try to impose restrictions on a project's DOCUMENTATION since that is all that's protected by copyright.  Read again.  Only the project documentation.   So, much like real datasheets, with silly legal clauses at the bottom, no one cares.  Take, for example, the companies who clone ICs, they simply reference the original documentation or create their own. 

4. OSHW licenses do not ensure attribution.  People are free to, and do most of the time, copy/modify/sell without.  Reference 3D printer components or half most of the projects on hackaday.

5. OSHW licenses do not ensure people give back to the community.  Not because they don't think they will get 'caught' and not because the legal fees are too high, but because there is no law preventing it and there is no OSHW reputation police.  i.e. No consequence.  Put your stuff out there if you want to help, don't expect any credit.  Understand and respect those who do because it takes a notable amount of time and effort to do it correctly. 

6. Companies participate when they can benefit.  The OSHW licenses do nothing to contribute to this.  If people convey that they want source data, and it benefits the company, they will abide.  If people want to see companies 'opening up', start the conversation by discussing WHY it's better for companies to NOT release this info and how that can/should be changed.

7. Any 'eco system for collaboration' is not handled through the OSHW licenses.  It's handled through tools like Github.

Prior to software being protected by copyright, 'open' designs were simply put out there.  Some people would ask for attribution or that that derivative works be made open.  Why can't people ASK anymore.  Tell me something is 'protected' by some 'license' and imply there is legal enforcement backing it up, when there isn't? Pfft.

If you really want something, ask for it BEFORE you throw it out there. If you put your design out there first, don't THEN demand that I do anything I don't legally have to do, or you're a dumb ass.     I'll use your stuff, thank you (if your work doesn't waste my time), then I'll laugh at your demands.  If you ASK, and it's reasonable, no problem.

Please don't reply with a defense of open source projects.  I fully understand how helpful releasing design documentation is, as I do it often.  It takes hard work to create something that saves more man-hours than it wastes.....most OSHW don't.   

Although that's not what this thread is about.  It's about clearing up misinformation about the legality of these licenses which largely originate from self-important OSHW associations and assumptions carried over from the OSS movement.

[zapta]

3. Legally, OSHW licenses can only try to impose restrictions on a project's DOCUMENTATION since that is all that's protected by copyright.  Read again.  Only the project documentation.   So, much like real datasheets, with silly legal clauses at the bottom, no one cares.  Just like people who clone ICs, they simply reference the original documentation or create their own. 

I know of at least one case when the protection of the documentation was also transferred to the design because the documentation described some aspects of the design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_Bicycle#Court_cases

[Poe]

3. Legally, OSHW licenses can only try to impose restrictions on a project's DOCUMENTATION since that is all that's protected by copyright.  Read again.  Only the project documentation.   So, much like real datasheets, with silly legal clauses at the bottom, no one cares.  Just like people who clone ICs, they simply reference the original documentation or create their own. 

I know of at least one case when the protection of the documentation was also transferred to the design because the documentation described some aspects of the design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_Bicycle#Court_cases

That is not what the the wiki page is saying.  The mention of them ALSO copying the manual has no effect on the rest of the paragraph. 

The article clearly says that the industrial design of the Brompton folding bicycle was protected because of design ques which were added over and above that which was required to be functional.  This is similar to adding a platypus to your board artwork.   It's a non functional element that adds a signature to your product so your work is recognized in the marketplace.  If I remove the platypus and copy only functional parts of the board, no copyright applies to your design.... regardless of what's in the documentation. 

To be clear, you can add copyrighted material to your OSHW project..... it just can't be functionally part of the design... because then it wouldn't be protected by the OSHW license...so....
Glitter is cool I guess....

[bwat]

2. THERE IS NO "LEGAL FRAMEWORK" for hardware designs.

Mask works in the US? I spy  a  (M) on an 8085.

[Laertes]

2. THERE IS NO "LEGAL FRAMEWORK" for hardware designs.

Mask works in the US? I spy  a  (M) on an 8085.

Not really. As I understand it, mask works also have to be filed pretty much like a petty patent or other semiconductor specific patent-like legal thingadoodles in other countries. Unlike other countries, in the US it's not the patent office that takes the registration, but the copyright office. Nonetheless, it's not automatic like SW copyright

Now that I've read up on the subject a bit, I gotta admit that the OP was quite right: The stuff I said about legal frameworks simply does not at all apply to hardware. Sorry.