Using the (L)GPL as an open-source hardware license?

[mondalaci]

Hi guys,

I use the GPLv3 for my applications and the LGPLv3 for my libraries. In a similar fashion I'd like to use them for my open-source hardware projects (GPL for schematic and PCBs, LGPL for schematic symbols and PCB modules).

The Open-source hardware wikpedia page mentions that:

Rather than creating a new license, some open-source hardware projects simply use existing, free and open-source software licenses. These licenses may not accord well with patent law.

This makes me worried and I'm quite lost in the legal talk. I don't necessarily insist to the (L)GPL for open-source hardware if it's not suitable but I do insist to a share-alike license.

Is the (L)GPL suitable for open-source hardware? If not, please suggest viable share-alike alternative licenses and possibly highlight their pros/cons.

Please note that I've asked this exact question at Stack Exchange, so you're encouraged to answer there if possible.

Thanks!

[Jeroen3]

I guess the problems exists in both being made open source by you, and being patented by you.
Which is obvious, because gpl allows anyone to use/sell it as long as it stays gpl and the "library"and modifications are made available (on request, with optional fee). Which is the thing you want to avoid with the patent....

[helius]

The GPL contains language that prevents anyone from distributing material that is covered by patents. Since it is difficult to imagine a useful circuit that is not covered by some patent, licensing your hardware under the GPL prevents you, or anyone else, from ever providing it to anyone. If a OSHW project dies in the forest, does anyone hear it?

[free_electron]

wanna make something really open source ? set it free. don't tie any strings to it ... anything else is ego polishing

[f5r5e5d]

there should be a sticky with just the best info from the too many rather confused threads on the topic

basically hardware is born free - absent active patents - you have to take specific action to gain limited time protection

hardware is different - and engineers know it - you either have a limited time patent, practice a trade secret with contractual terms or you've already given away anything about physical hardware disclosed in publication, or discoverable by any degree of inspection, "reverse engineering" any sold product absent binding contracts protecting secrecy

physical hardware, "inventions", "useful works" are not within the scope of copyright - you can't apply the principles to hardware

design documentation however can be copyright protected - you can use "open source" copyright ideas to control (including "freeing") some classes of exact copies of some design documents - but not the ideas, design principles, however "inventive" - you have to get a patent to have any legal basis for controlling hardware


read the link in this post from the other thread:

metri,
If your project includes a novel or patentable technology or concept, then be sure to choose a license such as TAPR OHL ( https://www.tapr.org/ohl.html ) in order to protect the novel concept from getting patented by a third party.  Usually any public disclosure of something original is enough to prevent a patent by third party. However, there are hypothetical cases where a license that addresses patent issues helps to protect a open source hardware project.
cheers,
Ben

[donotdespisethesnake]

I am pretty sure that TAPR does not help any more than the other licenses with regard to patents. You only get rights to license patentable IP if you own the patent, therefore the provision of the TAPR are legally baseless. If the physical design is not covered by copyright, the license provisions are worthless.

TAPR is more based on contract law, but the drawback there is that someone can still patent the idea by deciding not to agree to the contract (simply reading the design cannot constitute agreement), and contracts can not be passed to third parties. If B enters a contract with A who creates the design, then C must also enter a contract with A. B cannot pass on contract rights to C. This really hampers open sharing.

Unless the law changes with regard to hardware IP, then there can never be a really effective open hardware license. I don't think it is a case of waiting for some really clever lawyers to find a loophole.

However, if hardware protection was as easy as copyright, it would be a complete disaster. Already, companies are trying to "own" the product you buy, and prevent you using it in ways they don't approve (e.g. by using your own supply of coffee http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7986327/keurigs-attempt-to-drm-its-coffee-cups-totally-backfired). If everything you bought was licensed, then they could prevent people selling second hand on ebay. That would be a gift to people like Siglent, who currently use other underhand tactics to manipulate the market.

So unless a new law was really carefully worded to allow open source hardware without abuse by corporates, we should be very careful what we wish for.

[Marco]

wanna make something really open source ? set it free. don't tie any strings to it ... anything else is ego polishing

Or to make money, offering alternative licenses to GPL is pretty good for this in software, or to benefit from work done by others through enforced reciprocity. These motivations might not be as noble as complete charity, but I don't think anyone here can throw stones in that respect. Tireless workers only for the benefit of others none of us are.

[f5r5e5d]

it is the discussion in the TAPR document I found useful

the "best" that can be done is to patent any hardware innovation you want to "control" - including "freeing" - and then only within the limits and jurisdiction of the issued patent

otherwise to "open source"  a hardware invention you just need legally recognized "publication" to bar 3rd parties from trying to patent the invention and take it private


but given the Patent Office "Moral Hazard"  - they collect fees, the examiners get rated on issued patents - not the quality or validity - even clear Prior Art may have to be fought out in Court