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=sharingNotice 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.