fusion_power
Advanced Member
So he is the 1%, OK. ^^
And of course I'm glad others care about and in fact ED did, so we don't have to.
That's why I don't understand these endless discussions around that (important) task.
Power, Memory and Schematics
- Thread starter EvilDragon
- Start date
And of course I'm glad others care about and in fact ED did, so we don't have to.
That's why I don't understand these endless discussions around that (important) task.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Seeing as you lose that right with collective collaboration, this is what protects user rights in continued succession. It is not the license that does this, it is the inclusion of others' work.
Licensing can ensure this ensure this upholds users freedoms, and it can prevent it.
The establishment of copyright in modern law is a little more involved than that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662
Your perception of licensing is flawed in that there is no mutual exclusivity to commercialization and public interest.
What is to the highest degree in the public interest, rights whether bound in copyright or public domain, does not rule out commercialization.
Licensing can ensure this ensure this upholds users freedoms, and it can prevent it.
The establishment of copyright in modern law is a little more involved than that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662
Your perception of licensing is flawed in that there is no mutual exclusivity to commercialization and public interest.
What is to the highest degree in the public interest, rights whether bound in copyright or public domain, does not rule out commercialization.
Maybe, because it's a quite hard task to tackle for the 1% for the 99%?
Common, everyone join and contributes now! We could be 99 times faster finished!
[doublepost=1482090001,1482089215][/doublepost]
This is not my perception but legal reality. Copyright / patent law gives exclusive rights, including commercialization, to authors. There was at a time the experience (or public perception) of an misbalance between public interest and author's protection. Now, only a copyright reform could rearrange or recalibrate this balance, which is highly unlikely... inside the system, we can use the right licenses to address these issues. (you refer implicite to the repeated FSF claim that the GPL is not anti-commercial... while theoretical true, in practical sense the GPL is often anti-commercial... even RMS admits that here )
Last edited:
comradekingu
Glowing ember
There has always been an imbalance between the authors protection, and everything else. This is the false concept of what copyright is, and always has been.
You are quining pretty hard if you have to cite RMS having to "admit" to your agenda.
He said(what he actually said):
"Was created not for a technical goal, and not for a commercial goal, but so that users can have freedom"
and then clarifies upon prompting:
"i didn't say it is anti commercial"
Commercialization does not exist at the peril of copyright. Things can be copied without censorship and without cost in todays world.
You are quining pretty hard if you have to cite RMS having to "admit" to your agenda.
He said(what he actually said):
"Was created not for a technical goal, and not for a commercial goal, but so that users can have freedom"
and then clarifies upon prompting:
"i didn't say it is anti commercial"
Commercialization does not exist at the peril of copyright. Things can be copied without censorship and without cost in todays world.
Last edited:
S
sulu
Guest
Just to put things straight:
I do NOT insist, think, believe (whatever) that the OSHWA's definition of Open Hardware is or should be law. All I'm saying is, that their definition of "Open Hardware" does not allow for NC clauses. The same goes for all other definitions of "Open Hardware" (or similar terms) I know of, that bear any relevance. So obviously, the Pyra schematics can not be considered "Open Hardware" by any of these definitions.
I hope we can agree up to this point.
As it turned out, comradekingu on the other hand thinks that a project using an NC clause in it's license can still be considered "open", because his use of the generic English word "open" is so broad that it can't carry any significance at all, when ascertaining licenses for their "openness".
I think, saying anything about the "openness" of a license at all (as comradekingu has done when calling the Pyra design "open") makes no sense under these circumstances. You need to agree on certain minimal rules about the language you use (e.g. about the meaning of the word "open"). I believe license texts that were written or approved by lawyers are a good set of rules in this case.
That's why I kept asking him for any other "Open Hardware" (or similar term) definition that allows for an NC clause. Maybe he knows a set of rules (license text) that is applicable to hardware design files and allows for NC clauses in a license that defines the word "open". I don't. The only things he has come up with are outdated definitions (partly created by laymen), that were deprecated by their creators in favor of widely accepted licenses that do not allow for NC clauses.
Letalis Sonus
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,530
The OSHWA only defines Open Source Hardware. The definition's origin lies with the OSI and hence the whole term is heavily based on the OSI's own definition and understanding of Open Source (they do not define "Open" by itself!) - "Source" really shouldn't fall off the table. It is not related to calling anything "open hardware".
That's a fact and the very reason the FSF doesn't use the term open source, that's what Free/Libre is being used for - and yes, introducing a definition for the term Free Hardware based off the FSF's freedom principles has already been suggested. There's an even larger linguistic issue if you also take into account that using the term Source basically implies that you're referring to the source only, neglecting the actual product it describes, while the FSF's usage of Software does indeed cover the whole chain but obviously does not cover hardware.
You're basically expressing that you're fully standing behind the OSI in the whole OSI vs FSF controversy. The OSI is neither the only institution addressing the topic of free/libre/open intellectual property nor do they keep the monopoly on it, you have to accept that. The whole matter makes it even more important to be actually nit-picky about terms, if you want to pinpoint definitions don't just associate open hardware directly with Open Source Hardware.
S
sulu
Guest
I don't care if you want to call it "Open Source Hardware", "Open Hardware", "Free Hardware" or whatever. It all basically means the same: Applying the freedoms that are well established for FLOSS to hardware projects. What all those HW-related terms have in common is, that in every relevant definition you'll find that it includes the openness/freedom of selling the source/schematics.
And both are based on Debian's Social Contract, which explicitly states in point 1 of its DFSG that "Free Distribution" includes the selling of software falling under the DFSG. That got carried over via the OSI to the OSHWA.
I also don't see why you say "source" shouldn't fall off the table. Of course it shouldn't. But why do you think I'd let that happen? The Pyra license we're talking about is about the design schematics, which is the source of the Pyra as a hardware project.
No, I'm not. Both organisation's POVs have their strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not thinking in boxes, I just want to make sure we're using proper terms here, so that not everybody comes up with his own "definition" of what "openness" is, within the well established scope of FLOSS(&H).
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Whatever your variation over the theme "basically" is, it invalidates your claim.
To specify;
For anything open, it can be non-commercial. While non-commercial software isn't hugely relevant in terms of being widespread, it is relevant to how it is _not_ free software.
And thus, open from how it is not the same as free, is relevant. Because one guarantees your freedoms, and the other one implies it.
Ripping out "Free software" and replacing it with "Open Source" is how "being based on DFSG" is crucially different to what DFSG is.
To specify;
For anything open, it can be non-commercial. While non-commercial software isn't hugely relevant in terms of being widespread, it is relevant to how it is _not_ free software.
And thus, open from how it is not the same as free, is relevant. Because one guarantees your freedoms, and the other one implies it.
Ripping out "Free software" and replacing it with "Open Source" is how "being based on DFSG" is crucially different to what DFSG is.
S
sulu
Guest
No.
You're just making up your own definition of words again, just like you did with the word "open", that is clearly defined within the context of FLOSS licenses.
Yes, but being non-commercial MUST NOT (RFC 2119) be a requirement for being open.
Again: Every relevant FLOSS license will tell you that.
While I agree with every single line, I don't see how you make a causal connection between the two.
Of course FS != NC, and FS != OS, but there is no causality that allows for NC == OS.
1 != 2 and is 1 != 3. But that doesn't make 2 == 3.
I have no clue how you came up with that, but when I said that the OSD is based on the DFSG it was, because the former is a derivative of the latter. That has nothing to do with "ripping out" something out of anything.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Too bad open does not necessitate FLOSS licenses. Deal with the argument instead.
Open goes both ways. Non-commercial or Free. Non-commercial can be proprietary or open, but it can not be Free. Thus, Open != Free.
FLOSS licenses dictate FLOSS software. Open licenses are open to terms which would invalidate terms of it being Free Software.
Open Source doesn't always have to be non-commercial for my argument to string together. That _is_ my argument, it allows for a junction, where one way is NC, and the other is Free.
That is how the OSI came up with the OSD, which is a subversion of how the DFSG is in turn based on Free Software.
Seem to skip that part, and continue to only see open source in the image you deem worthy.
The irony of which, is you uphold Free Software too a tee, through not-invented-here revisionism.
Open goes both ways. Non-commercial or Free. Non-commercial can be proprietary or open, but it can not be Free. Thus, Open != Free.
FLOSS licenses dictate FLOSS software. Open licenses are open to terms which would invalidate terms of it being Free Software.
Open Source doesn't always have to be non-commercial for my argument to string together. That _is_ my argument, it allows for a junction, where one way is NC, and the other is Free.
That is how the OSI came up with the OSD, which is a subversion of how the DFSG is in turn based on Free Software.
Seem to skip that part, and continue to only see open source in the image you deem worthy.
The irony of which, is you uphold Free Software too a tee, through not-invented-here revisionism.
S
sulu
Guest
If "Open" could go "Non-commercial", then this interpretation would be laid down in some publicly accessible document that was approved by a lawyer, just as "Open" can go "Free" is laid down in a number of FLOSS licenses.
You, being a certifier, should know that "Open" == "Non-commercial" document, and should also be able to provide a reference to it. Yet, you fail or refuse to provide that reference and keep claiming instead that your unfunded interpretation of "Open" == "Non-commercial" is valid.
Just cite your sources!
error
Very Active Member
I'd also like to remind everyone that this horrible, terrible non-open license applies only to the schematic document. You can do anything you want with the hardware, including cloning, modifying, and/or selling it - and you have the full documentation available for you to do so. Sounds pretty open to me.
DFSG is NOT based on RMS' Free Software definition but was independently developed.
https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815
RMS like to claim everything in FOSS as his achievments which is unsubstantiated in many cases.
S
sulu
Guest
Just in case you're implying that, I never said and don't think that the license applied to the Pyra schematics is horrible or terrible or wrong or whatever. I'm just saying it is not open according to any definition I know of that might apply here.
What you can do with the physical hardware created by using these schematics has nothing to do with the schematic's license.
error
Very Active Member
If your argument is that it's not open hardware, then the license of the hardware seems like what you should be concerned with. You have virtually every right you could possibly want, except for the right to charge users for a freely available document.
[doublepost=1482268961,1482268738][/doublepost]I haven't looked at the document, but maybe it could start with "This document is available free of charge at <url>! If you paid money for this, you should ask for a refund." Then you could lift NC and still protect users from being swindled.
[doublepost=1482268961,1482268738][/doublepost]I haven't looked at the document, but maybe it could start with "This document is available free of charge at <url>! If you paid money for this, you should ask for a refund." Then you could lift NC and still protect users from being swindled.
S
sulu
Guest
You don't need a license for the physical hardware (in this case). You buy it and then it's yours and you can do with it whatever you want.
You only need licenses for things you don't own. You can download the schematics but they are not yours. The schematics are a "Werk" (here: "work") according to Gerrman "Urheberrecht" (copyright law) and still belong to GDC (Urheberrecht is non-transferable btw). GDC is granting you a license to do a lot of things with their schematics - excluding the selling of the schematics.
error
Very Active Member
I'm sure if I made an exact copy of my iPhone and started selling it, Apple's lawyers would be after me in minutes. No; most companies sell proprietary, patented, closed hardware. This is the opposite of that (i.e., open).
S
sulu
Guest
This is why I said "in this case" in my last post, because this is by far not true for all products.
And this is why earlier in this thread I expressed my opinion, that the schematics of your copyPhone, created by reverse-engineering of an iPhone, would have to be considered a derivative work of the iPhone schematics. Since you don't have a license for the original iPhone schematics that allows you to create and sell derivatives you're not allowed to sell your copyPhone.
error
Very Active Member
No, the license on the schematics concerns the schematic. The license of the design of the product is something else. Even if you had a fully licensed schematic, you wouldn't be licensed to make iPhones. Likewise, even though the license of the Pyra schematic is non-commercial, the license of the design itself is not so restricted.
