Electronics > Open Source Hardware

Open Source licenses...

(1/9) > >>

0xFFFF:
Hello Everyone!

Can anyone tell me what I need to do when specifying a specific open source license for hardware and software?
Currently I'm at the point where I have created a PCB design and I'm about to send it off. Before I do so, I'd like to specify an open source license.
I want anyone to feel free to improve upon, tweak, customize, hack my work as long as they still give credit but I don't want any of my work to be used in a closed source design.
What should I stamp on my PCB (as far as an open source license goes)?
Do I need to sign any dotted lines anywhere?

TIA

alexanderhiam:
Here's a list of a few open hardware licenses: http://www.ohwr.org/licenses. I've been using the CERN OHL myself. It has a pretty clear set of instructions on how to apply it: http://www.ohwr.org/documents/88.

0xFFFF:
Thanks alexanderhiam :)

Can you tell me why you picked CERN OHL?

Whenever I read this stuff I usually have a brain fart  :o. I hate legal mumbo jumbo.

Just noticed 'Open Source Hardware Explained - EEVblog #195' - watching now...

mswhin63:

--- Quote from: 0xFFFF on April 08, 2013, 05:11:47 am ---Whenever I read this stuff I usually have a brain fart  :o.

--- End quote ---

I love the okka euphemisms.  :-+

alexanderhiam:
Yup, great video.

A large part of the reason I like the CERN license is that it's designed specifically for hardware. It's really not all that different from Creative Commons in theory, but CC was really not designed for hardware, and there's a number of grey areas when using it.

For example, if you put CC BY-SA (attribution share-alike) on your PCB as well as on your documentation, it's not really clear whether they're under the same license or licensed separately. Someone could redistribute your PCB design with their own documentation, that might be completely wrong, and you would have a hard time trying to argue it. Firmware and software can be similarly confusing.

CERN, on the other hand, is explicit in the fact that it applies to the hardware design and the documentation, but not to any firmware or software. When you apply the CERN OHL, your design files, changelog and documentation (usage and assembly instructions, etc.) become a single entity.

The fact that it doesn't apply to firmware could also be seen as a problem, I suppose, because I believe you could technically have an open source board that runs proprietary firmware. I see it as a good thing myself, as I think there's enough differences between hardware and software that a single license really shouldn't apply to both, and there's a lot of great free/open software licenses to choose from.

Another good feature of the CERN license is that it specifies certain requirements for the level and quality of your documentation, which I like because it forces me to keep on top of it  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page