Power, Memory and Schematics

[Letalis Sonus]

In Germany you can give up the ownership rights, while being forced to keep the responsibilities... so it kind of works.

You're not telling me anything new, I already named the WTFPL as a way of doing exactly that. But that's still not public domain, you simply grant everyone the right to do what the fuck they want to with it.

The WTFPL actually being a valid license is kind of a joke in itself, though.

 

[shaddim]

You're not telling me anything new, I already named the WTFPL as a way of doing exactly that. But that's still not public domain, you simply grant everyone the right to do what the fuck they want to with it.

The WTFPL actually being a valid license is kind of a joke in itself, though.

Well, WTPFL or CC0 are from my understanding for the common use cases (?) functional identical to "real PD" .... WP calls them PD equivalent licenses. Good enough for me

 

[SneHebNor]

I hate threads about licenses, I hate discussing them, I hate licenses. I'm software developer and electrical engineer and business person, not a lawyer. But my life as software developer, esp. as active member of one of the largest free software projects in existence, as electrical engineer, and as business person, is, unfortunately, affected heavily by licenses. So we need to discuss such issues. Maybe not in this thread. Shall we start another one? So that people who don't want to be bothered don't have to follow it?

 

[fusion_power]

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

+1
99% here will never even get in touch with any license stuff, why people are so mad about that things?

 

[shaddim]

+1
99% here will never even get in touch with any license stuff, why people are so mad about that things?

I'm software developer and electrical engineer and business person, not a lawyer. But my life as software developer, [...] is, unfortunately, affected heavily by licenses. So we need to discuss such issues.

The sad truth is this stuff is ridiculous import, not only for developers but also or even more for the end-users. It should not (e.g. by fixing our broken IP/copyright system).... but as matter of fact, it is.

If we don't care, corporations and other big entities will care (see this John Deere example which affects anyone as this targets the end-users) and utilize the possibilities in the most harmful way for society and common folks. So you should be glad that some of your community's fellows trying to understand this dry crap and trying to prevent the most sever mistakes with their feedback.

TLDR: Yes this is boring crap, but sadly of uttermost importance, for anyone. Be glad that some care for it and you don't have to.

 

[comradekingu]

It is at least the other way around. Planned obsolescence doesn't work as well when you give away clues.
At least over 1% know more about electronics to improve their stuff, given the schematics to do so.
It is not the same what kind of stuff you support.
I don't know what kind of planet you live on where you haven't been into contact with closed source software that sucks. I laude the idea though.

----------------------------------
Shaddim, if you actually read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Adoption you would see you cited someone doing statistical anaysis without disclosing their methods.
GPL software is on the rise, not on the decline. Someone licensing their javascript two-liner as MIT, does not mean old and new projects stay shy of GPL.

Needless to say commercial GPL games exist.
The linux kernel is GPLv2 only because 1. linus wants it that way. 2. He, nor anyone else are really in the power to do anything about it. You would need consent out of every contributor for a change.
There is no link between sharing source and not being commercial. You will find what you linked to here doing a multitude of things. GPL is by far the most popular on that list btw.Here is a fresh grab off F-droid:

The user protections in GPLv3 and AGPLv3 work just fine.
In 1999 things were the same, apart from spying firmware not being a thing. I think pentium 2 processors had serial numbers that were reported, but nothing more, and that changed to voluntary status anyhow. You quoted both me and RMS into a context it does not belong. Read either one and you will see that.

Edit: Found statistics for software on f-droid https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/blob/master/stats/licenses.txt

1. GPLv3 808
2. Apache2 470
3. GPLv3+ 250
4. MIT 235
5. GPLv2 121
6. GPLv2+ 85
7. NewBSD 37
8. GPL 25
9. AGPLv3 18
10. MPL2 17

 

[WizardStan]

they are sticky and stay with us forever

No they don't. The original copyright holder can, at any time, re-release their work under a completely different license. The original work still exists and is bound by the same license, but the "new" work (even if it is effectively identical) gets a new license. That's why it's strictly superior (from a literal copyright perspective) to start with a restrictive license and open it up over time: you can grant new rights by re-releasing with a different license, but taking away rights is virtually impossible since someone can just grab the original with its old license.

 

[shaddim]

rights by re-releasing with a different license, but taking away rights is virtually impossible since someone can just grab the original with its old license.

Yes, which is another form of saying "once released under a license it stays so forever", or do I miss something?
Yes, and we can release again under different license terms, but this doesn't reduce the infinity of the original release.

 

[WizardStan]

True, the original keeps the same license, but you aren't "stuck": just use the re-release with the different license.
It seemed to me that you were arguing that it is important to get the license perfect the first time because otherwise you'd be locked into a bad license from the start, hence why this discussion was important. That's entirely untrue: if ED starts with something restrictive it is trivial to move to something less restrictive in the future, so there's no need to argue about licensing here and now, it can (and will) happen elsewhere at a later time.
If that wasn't what you were saying then I apologize for misunderstanding and ask for clarification.

 

[shaddim]

True, the original keeps the same license, but you aren't "stuck": just use the re-release with the different license.
It seemed to me that you were arguing that it is important to get the license perfect the first time because otherwise you'd be locked into a bad license from the start, hence why this discussion was important. That's entirely untrue: if ED starts with something restrictive it is trivial to move to something less restrictive in the future, so there's no need to argue about licensing here and now, it can (and will) happen elsewhere at a later time.
If that wasn't what you were saying then I apologize for misunderstanding and ask for clarification.

ahh... Now I see your point. Yes, licensing is fixable (as long as there is someone who can and cares) by re-releasing under a better license.


But here lies some kind of risk: developers might be tempted to shift the final release in the future again and again... until it is to late for multiple reasons.
Therefore I think an automatism is a good idea, like: "this stuff is currently NC/proprietary but in 6 years it is automatically CC BY-SA" -> timebomb license. Clarity and no risk that something might get wrong in the future.

And specifically about the current situation: I would be very fine with a clear statement of ED that the stuff will be released in the forseeable future under a less restrictive license, FOSS/WP compatible license.

 

[comradekingu]

WizStan: The same can be done with CLAs. I dont understand why users must have less rights, because the original author wants control over the project licensing course

 

[shaddim]

the original author wants control over the project licensing course

They don't "want", they have already by the current copyright. Licensing is about giving up somewhat of their complete and exclusive control.

Copyright was invented to protect creative authors from instant theft while their investment has not yet paid out. A situation which applies here....

On the other side is the interest of the society (or in this case the "community") that a work does not get lost or becomes unavailable or unusable or unextendable in the long run. There are licenses available which achieve proper balance between the interests, with also CC BY-NC-SA somewhere inbetween.

 

[Kippykip]

You bois should learn to not read the terms and conditions when installing programs, it's great.

 

[fusion_power]

The sad truth is this stuff is ridiculous import, not only for developers but also or even more for the end-users. It should not (e.g. by fixing our broken IP/copyright system).... but as matter of fact, it is.

If we don't care, corporations and other big entities will care (see this John Deere example which affects anyone as this targets the end-users) and utilize the possibilities in the most harmful way for society and common folks. So you should be glad that some of your community's fellows trying to understand this dry crap and trying to prevent the most sever mistakes with their feedback.

TLDR: Yes this is boring crap, but sadly of uttermost importance, for anyone. Be glad that some care for it and you don't have to.

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.

 

[shaddim]

You bois should learn to not read the terms and conditions when installing programs, it's great.

not necessarily, you might loss your soul ;P

 

[comradekingu]

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.

 

[shaddim]

That's why I don't understand these endless discussions around that (important) task.

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]

Your perception of licensing is flawed in that there is no mutual exclusivity to commercialization and public interest.

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 )

 

[comradekingu]

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.

 

[sulu]

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.

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]

"Open Hardware" (or similar terms)

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".

Just to put things straight:
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".

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.