OSHW licenses

[technix]

What should an open source license look like? Can a regular open source software license like GPLv2 or 3BSDL be used, or is it appropriate to use a specialized OSHW license like TAPR? (I have put a lot of my own open source projects under 3BSDL.)

[spongle]

IMO, they are pretty pointless - you cannot copyright an electrical circuit. At best you can lay claim to the binary sch/layout files and gerbers.

So if you just want to put it out there, any free license like BSD/MIT/CC0 is fine (although check if it refers specifically to "software"). But copyleft like GPL is probably not useful.

[spongle]

Glanced at the TAPR license and would love to see a lawyer weigh in on it. My feeling is it has no teeth.

[Nominal Animal]

Check out the License Quick Comparison Chart at inmojo.

The definition of OSHW is here.

Furthermore, I warmly recommend EEVblog #921, where Dave shows how to add letters to the OSHW gear logo teeth to make it unambiguous and clear to users what parts the OSHW license applies to.

You can apply different licenses to different files/parts of the design.  You can use a copyleft license for the firmware or documentation, if you want their derivatives to remain open source.  For the PCB, BOM, and CAD files, I'd use a less restrictive license, as using a copyleft license for those does not make much sense: they are used to produce the product, and not necessarily distributed at all; and copyleft licenses only place restrictions on the distribution, not use.

[Nominal Animal]

Glanced at the TAPR license and would love to see a lawyer weigh in on it. My feeling is it has no teeth.

TAPR license was written by John Ackermann, an attorney specializing in software licensing.

If you want an open hardware license with weight behind it and a GPL-like copyleft intent to it, look at CERN Open Hardware license.  While CERN is in Europe, USA has more CERN users than any other nation (1700 or so).  This license has had dozens of lawyers pore over it, discussing it for years, with user (scientists and engineers) input.

[spongle]

The TAPR license hinges on this text:

1.5  By (a) using, copying, modifying, or distributing the
Documentation, or (b) making or having Products made or distributing
them, you accept this Agreement, agree to comply with its terms, and
become a "Licensee."

However, I do not believe (b) has any grounds. I simply am not obligated to accept such an agreement in order to manufacture a design, and if I do not distribute design files I am not violating any copyright.

The CERN license sidesteps this by applying to documentation and patents, which can be protected. However, they still try some verbal trickery by conflating "design" and "design documentation" - one is protected, one is not.

[Nominal Animal]

I have a foolproof solution for dealing with lawyers who encourage businesses to rely on your points.

It involves a firearm, lots of lye or acid, and a deep hole in the desert.