Correct, but what's that got to do with the validity of a meeting the license requirements?
Correct. But once again, but what's that got to do with the validity of a meeting the license requirements?
I think Altiums control of CM and its use has absolutely everything to do with it (meeting the terms of the licence)
So, just a few points to lay the ground
- I'm not an expert on law or open source licenses so if anything I say is incorrect, please correct me.
- I've skimmed the licence documents to help me write this answer (not want to look like an idiot for talking about licences that I've not looked at).
I haven't read every line, I just picked the passages that help me support my argument. I therefore, may be guilty of cherry picking text.
It's not my intention to mislead anyone or to mis-represent the licence. If this does happens, please accept my apologies and correct me. - I will argue CMs business model is a new concept in as far as the way it locks down the CM ecosystem. In some cases, this may have leapfrogged
some open source licences because the authors of those licenses didn't consider a model where the cad tool itself could disappear. In such a case,
where the wording of the licence does not specifically state its incompatibility with the model, I will attempt to argue the intent behind the licence
is violated by the CM model. This will be my interpretation of intent. I do this because where a legal framework is grey, the intent behind the framework
has been used to determine guild/innocence. - I wish to make clear that what we are arguing about is the design documentation of the hardware, not the physical hardware.
I will refer to open source documentation to explain this point. - An authors intention to place their work under an open licence, implies that they agree with the terms, definitions & responsibilities asserted by that licence.
I would also like to address the point that some licences are not meant for open source hardware. Examples are (L)GPL.
I think it depends on your definition of open source hardware and what you think you're protecting by placing such things under a licence.
The open source hardware association states in this site
http://www.oshwa.org/faq/ any emphasis or bold text is my own addition for clarity.
“Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design.
The hardware’s source, the design from which it is made, is available in the preferred format for making modifications to it.”
Note that open-source hardware refers specifically to sharing the digital design files for physical objects; while we support other forms of sharing, we think it’s important to be clear about the meaning of open-source hardware.
It is crucial, however, to make a distinction between the design files for the hardware and the hardware itself. The design files are likely protected by copyright, even if the hardware itself is not.
Licensing is often used for copyrighted information, which includes the source-code to computer programs, the text of books, photographs, recordings of music, etc.
By placing an open-source license on a copyrighted work, you give people permission to make copies of it — a right they wouldn’t otherwise have.
In return, you can require them to, for example, license derivatives of your work under the same license (a condition known as “copyleft”).
This works well for source code, documentation, and other works for which copyright applies.
In general, there are two broad classes of open-source licenses: copyleft and permissive. Copyleft licenses (also referred to as “share-alike” or “viral”) are those which require derivative works to be released under the same license as the original;
common copyleft licenses include the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. Other copyleft licenses have been specifically designed for hardware;
they include the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL) and the TAPR Open Hardware License (OHL). Permissive licenses are those which allow for proprietary (closed) derivatives;
they include the FreeBSD license, the MIT license, and the Creative Commons Attribution license.
& for the GPL itself I pulled the following from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.htmlThe GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
So (L)GPL and others like it are copyleft licences -> CopyLeft licences are perfect for anything copyrightable -> design files for open source hardware are copyrightable -> the design files are what is referred to as open source hardrware.
There you go, ipso-facto (L)GPL and others like it can be applied to open source hardware. Remember it applies to the design files and
not the manufacturing process, the chemistry, masksets, the fab etc.
Some people, therefore, feel justified in interpreting the words "source code" or "program" in the GPL as references to design documentation.
If you don't like that definition then I refer you to ground rule (5) above and suggest you choose a different license with different view.
I would much rather use a copyleft license specifically worded for hardware.
Here are some key quotes:
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.
Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received.
You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
In some cases, you might decide not to publish the design files until sometime after the product has been released;
that’s fine (unless your product derives from another open-source hardware project whose license requires the open-sourcing of derivatives)
but the product isn’t open-source hardware until the files are available.
Instead, you might say something like “we plan to open-source this product in the future.”
& from CERN OHL
http://www.ohwr.org/attachments/2388/cern_ohl_v_1_2.txt (CERN uses the OSHA definitions)
20 “Documentation” means schematic diagrams, designs, circuit or circuit
21 board layouts, mechanical drawings, flow charts and descriptive text,
22 and other explanatory material that is explicitly stated as being made
23 available under the conditions of this Licence. The Documentation may
24 be in any medium, including but not limited to computer files and
25 representations on paper, film, or any other media.
27 “Documentation Location” means a location where the Licensor has
28 placed Documentation, and which he believes will be publicly
29 accessible for at least three years from the first communication to
30 the public or distribution of Documentation.
105 d) make available the modified Documentation at the same level of
106 abstraction as that of the Documentation, in the preferred format for
107 making modifications to it (e.g. the native format of the CAD tool as
108 applicable), and in the event that format is proprietary, in a format
109 viewable with a tool licensed under an OSI-approved license if the
110 proprietary tool can create it; and
I could look at other licenses but my eyes are glazing over.
I'd bet they all have something similar.
I and others have argued CM is not compatible with open source licences and I have tried to make my position clear in another thread, but in hindsight,
I would say CM is a great tool, but its business model and restrictions make it impossible for the author of open sourced licensed works to guarantee the
availability or editability of his/her work in for any period (small or large) of time. In this way the restrictions and lockdown of the tool work to limit the
author and stop him/her meeting their obligations under their chosen license.
Granted, the licences do not specify a time limit on availability (I would therefore assume they want availability forever). All except the CERN license, which states 3 years.
Even OSHA implies that things cant be open source until the files are available. I would argue that this implies available & editable. With CM, your files may be available
but without CM being able to phone home they may as well be non-existent.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
