Power, Memory and Schematics

[comradekingu]

WizStan:
I fail to see why one more organization doing open hardware means they are gunning for exclusivity.
A trademark is useless if you don't defend it. So Bruce Perens allows this, but somehow OSHWA is now the sole authority?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#History is the lowdown on how things have progressed.

Noteworthy:

97 Bruce Perens launches Open hardware certification program

David Freeman announces Open Hardware Specification Project (OHSpec)

99 Sepehr Kiani, Ryan Vallance and Samir Nayfeh Open Design Foundation (ODF) to develop open design definition

07 Patrick McNamara Open Hardware Foundation (OHF)

Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Corporation from 82 - TAPR open Hardware license

10 Open Hardware definition - many actors

11 Cern - CERN OHL open hardware license

Bruce Perense abandons OSHW definition and the concerted efforts of those involved with it.

12 FSF Respect Your Freedom RYF

Perens has open and closed his openhardware.org site many times.

Right now its the ngix default landing page.

"Openhardware.org, led by Bruce Perens, promotes and identifies practices that meet all the combined requirements of the Open Source Hardware Definition, the Open Source Definition, and the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Foundation"

While Perens uses Open Source to mean 4 freedoms, i wonder how he thought making an organization with ESR for a word that states only one was a good idea.
What the world needed, and still needs, is a better word for the same thing, not something you can imply to mean the same thing. Free software is as a word in English, lacking, but the concept is spot on.

Perens leaves the OSI shortly thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens#Open_Source_Definition_and_The_Open_Source_Initiative
Is an interesting read.

He seems unable to articulate his good ideas with a similarly good choice of words.

I don't know what the open hardware definition is, but any original claims to "open hardware" seem lost.
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition uses the term "Free Cultural Works"
FSF uses RYF, which i imagine to be a Free Cultural Work thing.
Wikipedia called it the "Open design" movement.
------------
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary

How do you think things end up in the public domain? Even if it didn't, copyright law has lots of provisions for use by others, like fair use parody.

If you relate it to "license", as was the original argument, a nondescript license providing default copyright, in most countries (not all), is not what publishing without one means.

-----------
Shaddim: I have a feeling you dont' read the things you link to. And when you do, you don't understand them. What you linked to this time clearly refutes you claim.
Again, its not important what that claim is, its the ugly notion of how much, or little, of an effort you put into your agenda.
You do not understand law, or English. The FSF can't be "pragmatic" because then the foundation of their work would be irrelevant, and we would in effect have less protection for the software we use.

For you to use the word pragmatic, is ironic. Suggested reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

 

[shaddim]

Shaddim: I have a feeling you dont' read the things you link to. And when you do, you don't understand them.

I think you run out of arguments
[doublepost=1481997355,1481997024][/doublepost]

Of course they can. Create something, publish everything, don't chose any license, EULA or what have you - things default to basic copyright law, you remain the owner of everything and don't grant implied rights to anybody. Boom, fully open and yet fully proprietary.

"Proprietary" is a term that relates to ownership, it does not cover whether something is open or closed in any sense - that's more of a common assumption because proprietary stuff often is closed.

indeed. an example is DONKEY.BAS by Bill Gates, distributed as source code. (I think it was ported for the Pandora)

More examples are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_video_games_with_available_source_code

You do not understand law, or English. The FSF can't be "pragmatic" because then the foundation of their work would be irrelevant, and we would in effect have less protection for the software we use.

For you to use the word pragmatic, is ironic. Suggested reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Maybe the FSF under RMS can't inherently be pragmatic, but for instance the FSFE can be pragmatic.
On the other hand, RMS has shown sometimes suprises like the OGG vorbis switch from GPL to BSD .

My point is, if the GPLv2 to GPLv3 switch would have been handled more realistic and diplomatic (if you like these words better), not alienating the linux kernel, we could still have an strong copyleft system. And a strong copyleft ecosystem we need to be effective in user protection. A system or license no one uses but perfect defending user freedom is also a failure. And here the GPLv3 was a failure, where the GPLv2 was an success, adoption and acceptance.

I don't know what the open hardware definition is, but any original claims to "open hardware" seem lost.

http://web.archive.org/web/19981212031618/http://www.openhardware.org/

as in anything but the open hardware we have had for ages.
Predating btw, the term open hardware. The reason we have it, and why a sentiment like this, is because of the hacker ethos. No more closely does that align with anything but user freedom. Which is why free software, if a bit of a duality in its English meaning, is a defined term that makes sense.

At least according to FSF's guru it has nothing to do with hacker ethos or Free software: RMS 1999 "I see no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software."

 

[WizardStan]

I fail to see why one more organization doing open hardware means they are gunning for exclusivity.

Ok, I will step back because that was entirely irrelevant to the point and I refuse to get caught up in a debate over semantics here. It doesn't matter at all whether they are intentionally going for exclusivity or not, the fact is that they have written up their definition and currently stand as one of, if not the, leading authority on the matter, to the degree that Sulu has insisted that their word is law and any deviation is intrinsically wrong. To answer the question you asked, as I originally had, Sulu wants you to present some other authority, equal in strength and devotion as OSHWA, that defines "open hardware" differently. Full stop there. Ignore everything else I said after that point, it was tangential and not directed at anything specific you had said; in fact it was more or less just a rephrasing of what you had already said with a little of my own emphasis.
In other words, we are on the same side in this debate and I don't understand why you're attacking the irrelevant details. At least when I'm being a pedantic ass the thing I'm arguing against has the potential to change the meaning of the argument.

 

[FaeMinx]

Addiction. .. It takes many forms.

Anyone here addicted to thinking?

Oh you're not addicted?

Well can you stop anytime you choose? Really?
And how long does that last before you're doing it again?

Oh it's a 'healthy' amount of thinking you're doing... is that so? is that SO?

Yes I've heard that justification before... It's intervention time!

 

[comradekingu]

I just didnt understand all of your argument, as it had some, to me, inconsequential and erronous parts. So we are clear.

Yes, the TAPR is a open hardware license, the oldest one, backed by a organization from 82. Cern isnt a small-fry either…

The problem about open hardware isn't that someone can claim hardhandedly what it is, far from it, and to the contrary, the problem with open hardware is that nobody can do that.

What sulu feels about the matter is irrelevant. I feel i just entertain the idea that it matters by getting baited into how flawed it is.

Claiming I have to come up with evidence to the contrary,to a claim that, in a history of many, where quite a few still exist, one more recent initiative, using the exact same word, to be the decider of its use, manages to be both misguided, wrong and arrogant.

When stating something, the burden of proof is on the one claiming it to come up with evidence in its support.
Assumption is a poor excuse for research, it does not warrant forming a strong opinion to begin with.

I think the root cause here is that some people really like the word "open" and "open source", but dislike how i use it for what it is worth, rather than its implied meaning.

And the reason it isnt so fruitful, is because we are left with some rather moronic stances, defended by running away from them.

Here is a summary, semi-chronological with the interesting bits, and some value added to see where I am coming from:

To begin with open source, you can have that and be non-commercial.

Non-commercial licenses being defunct, not-popular, etc, does not invalidate this claim. That is the point, open source can suck. There is no guarantee it doesn't suck almost as much as closed source. Free software has this guarantee, but you wont get it with hardware.

>But my ad populace arguments, and feels, everyone is so un-pragmatic

Applying software terms to hardware isn't anything more than a social discipline, because patent law applies, which is why you cant directly use regular licenses, since they deal in copyright.

> But I do it anyway, and that is the way it is

Some hardware licenses like TAPR work just fine, but you need patents, making it non-functional.
Everything else is like hacker software pre 1974.

>But defunct, and I picked my special governing body, the OSI, and open source, it was always about open source, free software is irrelevant, they all want you to believe in their freedom,
but you should totally take my definition of open hardware at face value, based on my misguided idea of open software, from only one source, because pragmatic.
Everything after 1974 stole the movement that was there before then. They even stole Free software as a term.

FSF is not the only free software foundation, and OSI open source is free software.
Exact same hackers, exact same ideas. New laws, better ideas.
Using the term Free software to mean free as in beer, is not a software specific thing. You are thinking of freeware. The distinction between who does freeware is also not the decider in what freeware is. It covers both camps of freeware users, and has nothing to do with free software licenses.

>But if it wasnt that free software came along for a reason, then it was that open source came along for a better one, but the FSF split the hacker movement, right around the same time… And then they split copyleft software with GPLv3, GPLv2 only before GPLv3 came out means rejecting what the GPLv3 is. Just look at these supporting arguments from before open source, and to the contrary of what, what?
I still refuse to see any argument that open source only provides open source, while being perfectly able to contest the point that free software is a good term.

Class act revisionism. The Pyra license is copyleft sans the NC clause, while that does not make it copyleft, or free, it is still qualifies for open. And open hardware in a hardware sense can be non-commercial. The point that free software was a good term was never made, it is a good thing, and a defined one at that.

>But my ad populace arguments this time too, and feels again, everyone is so un-pragmatic. I still have my favourite governing body, and this time i'm also saying that it is the only decider in matters open, while claiming the FSF tries to do that too, something i disagree with, damnit.

Cern, TAPR, and others exist, and predate OSHWA, you will even find non-commercial open hardware licenses. Even if they didnt, the link between a governing body doing something in the name of open, that is aligned to the ideas of free software, does not necessitate the link, it is a correlation. Because words, language, and meaning.

>That doesn't matter because you cant say they are deciders when I have picked who I want to decide.
Also my ad populace because defunct and doesn't work. Nobody subscribes to that, and the ones that do are small, or decide against it. Nobody would use open source against free software ideas.

I am not, you cant decide if there is no unity or definition to the term, that is the point.
Also, If you couldn't shoot yourself in the Free software foot by being open source to the point of non-commercial and then retracting it, maybe nobody would do it…
They retract it because sometimes open source isn't free software, and if what you want to do is free software…
Open source is also historically a word meant to de-emphasise the ideas of free software. It is also used as "opencore" or in other such ways by companies that never want to be free software.
The idea is free software works just fine if it is strong copyleft. And gplv3 works best. This i support by companies using gplv2 when they have to, and closing everything they can, or doing BSD style licenses.
With those having the provision to go closed, and doing it in major fashion. Also because they lose out to projects people care more for. This is because people care for their work, and don't want to see it be taken away.
Some people are really on-board with a license being as little as possible, seeing restrictions as unnecessary, or hampering freedom. Yes, that is a point to make, but it is a tautological one, and deals with license freedom, not user freedom.

>Only if you can do my research

Here you go.

-----------

And that pretty much covers it. Be mad at law, your particular historical event, or ED for not having all the time in the world to deal with licensing. The FSF being arrogant is not a good reason to make a new word, it is a reason to call the FSF out on it.

Disagreeing with having a thread about licenses, is not a good reason to shitpost about it. Thats how you get, more of that, with less of the actual content.

In the name of pragmatism, please provide better ideas for actual licenses to use if you want to object, and support them with arguments based in law, rather than dogma.

 

[WizardStan]

Oh it's a 'healthy' amount of thinking you're doing... is that so? is that SO?

Oh hell no. It's literally going to kill me one day. I've accepted my fate.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

How do you think things end up in the public domain?

Public domain by itself is a questionable idea that is not being covered by several countries' law in the intentional sense, that's why licenses like the WTFPL exist. You can't simply drop ownership of your intellectual property, because several countries don't allow that at all, you can only lose them through obsoletion - which may take a whole lifespan or may even be bound to your death. In countries like France and Germany, you'll remain the author of your own stuff, no matter how eagerly you'd like to drop this privilege entirely.

And, last but not least, to counter one dictionary with another: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proprietary

 

[EvilDragon]

I should create my own license. One that has "do what you want with it, especially cool things, but don't rip us off" as basic idea.

 

[sm0kew0n]

Yeah write one, then we can discuss it!

 

[canseco]

The authors decided what license to use, i don't understand why it's so hard to deal with it.

 

[erico]

I should create my own license. One that has "do what you want with it, especially cool things, but don't rip us off" as basic idea.

But under which license are you going to create you own license?

 

[Trezker]

Here's a starting point for you http://www.wtfpl.net/

 

[Swordfish II]

I hate this thread. Please stop talking licenses, none of you are actually going to run into a use case issue where it will matter

 

[Caine]

Is this license discussion still running?

I am impressed, but not in a good way.

 

[comradekingu]

WTFPL is a non-starter in that regard.

I think (?) we can say that the idea of time-based public domain coincides with countries that have some form of copyright protection. The idea is some form of fairness, and advancement of culture.
Having no copyright, and no patent law, would upen this up for debate, but that country is not Germany.

Being available "open", while not under free/open license at all & therefore fully proprietary, offers already according to Bernstein many benefits for society and users: repairs, adaptions for personal use and not being orphaned / lost forever. About DRM and the right to fix your own stuff: John Deer and tractors... the horrible future in general?

Free and open not mean the same thing in this sense, if you just publish stuff, it is not fully proprietary anywhere. (?) Emphasis on fully here.

A free open license, is in the case of software, as per the Bernstein link, a free license, it just wastes a word. FOSS to me just seems to qualify the open source. And one would think that to be as gratis, seeing as OS would otherwise be redundant.
An open license does not distinguish itself from being open, for the user. That is a technicality that doesn't make any sense in this context. It is for the end user and ecosystem not a distinction upon open that matters, but what free brings.

The benefit to society, is being able to share modified versions. You similarly don't get to compile anything just because it is open. Similarly, this personal use provision, exists, as per the link, for software. And the digital millennium stuff supersedes that link.

It doesn't matter much what rights you have, so long as the proprietor reserves the rights to prevent you from having them. That is the point of the tivoization clause from GPLv3 wrt. v2. So free can for the purpose of being useful, be thwarted too.

It gives you more tools, but may turn out to be a crucial difference. Nobody cares what rights you have foremost, they care about what rights they have first. This could not be more apparent in the hardware world, because here consumers do not posses the means to copy, and the cost of manufacture is still what prevents it from being perfectly copy-able. There is however a framework on the protection of ability, legally speaking.

Again, hardware does not have the same copyright law governing it. You need to disclose its method of operation, into the open, to be able to have a legal protection that applies to distribution.
This is what a patent is.

Edit: I don't know enough about patent law to understand what happens when you just publish stuff. It seems to be the tangent that upholds the faith in some of these open hardware licenses. And possibly why a non-commercial clause is void. If true, this would still not be open necessitating free, it would just be the nature of copyright law applied to hardware.

Maybe it is the clause of not suing the whole on patent grounds if one finds use in any of the open hardware works published under the license that has this provision, that makes it work. The concept is not unfamiliar, and this turns it on its head.

Holding a patent gives protection, that much seems clear. Unless you upset someone with a bigger portfolio, of, for the case of argument, software patents, as those are a thing in the US, where one may want to distribute, a thing which is both hardware, and computer software.

If you can "just do what you want", it is certainly also every means of ripping off the idea, and the work.

Minus maybe "prior art" in patent law, and those by-default provisions for copyright.

 

[shaddim]

I hate this thread. Please stop talking licenses, none of you are actually going to run into a use case issue where it will matter

Well, here is the problem with licenses, they are sticky and stay with us forever. And in the long run a mis-selection of a license WILL make problems and collide with valid use cases. We see that now more and more in the FOSS software domain: for instance the collision of Linux kernel (GPLv2) + ZFS (CDDL).

Or Pandora relevant the license selection for Homeworld: while meant to be available, stupid license clauses requiering an account of a service long dead limiting the progress.

License selection is a hard business & shouldn't wiped under the rug as "boring legal stuff, let's chose something as fast as possible and be done with it"

 

[Letalis Sonus]

I think (?) we can say that the idea of time-based public domain coincides with countries that have some form of copyright protection.

The lack of intentional public domain is not about protection. Ownership is a double-edged sword, you don't just get granted rights for your creations, you're also responsible for them. When you put something into public domain, you do not only drop your rights, you also lose the responsibility because the object effectively becomes author-less - which is not acceptable for several jurisdictions for obvious reasons.

 

[shaddim]

I should create my own license. One that has "do what you want with it, especially cool things, but don't rip us off" as basic idea.

Well, copyleft/share-alike was made with this idea in mind. "I give you my stuff but require you to give back".
CC BY-SA, GPLv2/3 etc

On the other hand, if you define rip off as : "I give you my stuff, do what you want, but don't step into my commerical business"
than indeed CC BY-SA-NC is the right selection.

(But again, why is this thread (understandable) going on, even if it annoys some? As this was not defined early enough in the "open" announcement!)

 

[ClockworkCoder]

Well, here the problem with licenses, they are sticky and stay with us forever. And in the long run a mis-selection of a license WILL make problems and collide with valid use cases. We see that now more and more in the FOSS software domain: for instance the collision of Linux kernel (GPLv2) + ZFS (CDDL).

Or Pandora relevant the license selection for Homeworld: while meant to be available, stupid license clauses requiering an account of a service long dead limiting the progress.

License selection is a hard business & shouldn't wiped under the rug as "boring legal stuff, let's chose something as fast as possible and be done with it"

Threads should be focused. This is not a thread in which to have long discussions about licensing.

Someone please created a dedicated thread, and sit those issues out separately and respect those of us that are not interested at this stage.

 

[shaddim]

The lack of intentional public domain is not about protection. Ownership is a double-edged sword, you don't just get granted rights for your creations, you're also responsible for them. When you put something into public domain, you do not only drop your rights, you also lose the responsibility because the object effectively becomes author-less - which is not acceptable for several jurisdictions for obvious reasons.

In Germany you can give up the ownership rights, while being forced to keep the responsibilities... so it kind of works.
And it is well enough emulated with the CC0 licnese. which works everywhere, analyzed for Germany law.