Reality of OSHW - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2014, 07:55:09 pm
content: So OSHW appears to be more of a nicety and not so much of a a legal 'thing' from what I can tell. (USA specific)Copyrights only apply to board art, documentation and software.(http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect)So any discussion about copyright licensing is a discussion about those three things. NOT about the hardware design itself.(http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf)A copyright is not a patent. If you develop a crazy cool new circuit and don't get a patent, anyone can make and sell it so long as they don't use those three protected things. Simple as that.Lets say you designed a class AB amp and have a very strict license requirements. Now lets say I decided to copy, make and sell it while ignoring your license. I use the same parts, but I did my own board artwork and documentation. Here's the two hypothetical schematics:I'm 100% in the clear.Now what if I just slightly modified your board art because there's only one good way to layout that design, using those components? Or what if I copied your compiled software exactly, that gets me into a grey area which is practically just as safe!(http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch)Why? Keep in mind that the courts decide where that 'original' line lays.(http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html)In other words, there's no such thing as The Copyright Police. You have to sue them. This involves attorney fees, court fees, expert witnesses, etc.Assume I carbon copied your board art and documentation, an open/shut case of infringement. You want me to stop selling it, what do you do? Well, you need to pay some lawyers six figures to try and get about four figures out of my throw-away limited liability company. I might face criminal charges if I made bank, but considering the marketability and design quality of most OSHW projects... unlikely.Additionally, you have to register your copyright prior to bringing a lawsuit for infringement. Now, considering NO ONE registers their board art and/or documentation.... someone about to clone your design could register YOUR artwork before you and be in a really good defensive position if you ever decide to take action. If you never released it into a public forum, good luck trying to prove you're the original author. In fact, if they registered it before you released it to a publication, and you started to produce it, they could come along later and sue you for damages! You would be hard pressed to prove the design was yours! Now the only way that would happen is if someone had the foresight to register a design that is likely to generate enough profit to offset the legal fees (read as never).So at least in my research, these OSHW licenses are silly since hardware is not protected like software.Releasing copyright material into the public domain is nice and helpful. Not releasing such artwork it is a good business decision in most cases.If someone could think of a good reason to do anything else (licenses), please tell me.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2014, 08:04:24 pm
content: Sparkfun's owners (Pete Dokter and "the money guy") did an AMA just yesterday and they answered some questions about copyrights and patents.One thing that I remember is that they estimated 30k to 50k in legal fees and about 3 years to get one patent and they felt it wasn't worth it because technology moves ahead so much in 3 years that your patent is no longer useful.As for your argument about holding the designs.. a group of guys in China can reverse engineer your boards in a couple of days or a week depending on the complexity.

author: mazurov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2014, 10:02:32 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on July 09, 2014, 07:55:09 pmIn general, US ppl won't touch a published design unless an explicit permission in a form of a licence is given (and sometimes they will e-mail you to ask for a permission to use GPLd code just for themselves). By US law, a copyright is automatic. So if you want to release your work for all to use give it a license; if you want to exclude Americans, don't include a license. I'm speaking from experience.The rest of the world doesn't give a shit.Caveat: every generalization is wrong (including this one).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2014, 10:33:37 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on July 09, 2014, 07:55:09 pmCopyright doesn't work like that, you don't have (and can't) register anything.Copyright is automatic to the author.What an OSHW license gives other people is the ability to use your design under the terms of whatever agreement you use.It doesn't matter whether you have a patent, or use an OSHW licence, or just rely on your natural copyright. Anyone can copy anything at any time they like, there is nothing stopping them. The only thing that can stop them is a law suit and enforcement of a court order, and that costs huge money.OSHW works by providing a (hopefully) legal framework around which people can share stuff. But in reality it's more like a set of rules that everyone plays nice by. If you don't play nice, you generally don't get sued, you get publicly shamed.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2014, 10:36:39 pm
content: Quote from: mariush on July 09, 2014, 08:04:24 pmAnd a patent is almost worthless unless you plan to spend evenmoremoney defending it.To successfully win a patent lawsuit in court against a adversary willing to fight you requires, at a minimum, 7 figures.If you don't have the money to defend it, then all the use a patent is in protecting your design is as an idle threat to a small player who also can't afford to defend themselves.

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2014, 11:35:58 pm
content: There is an alternative to patenting and copyrighting if you want to make something open source - it is apublic disclosure. That would prevent someone from patenting your invention that is if you care. Disclosure should be very cheap - like one notary fee kind of cheap. Again if you bother about this kind of stuff just look it up.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2014, 11:45:25 pm
content: Quote from: Alexei.Polkhanov on July 09, 2014, 11:35:58 pmThat used to be called "prior art". The reason you can't patent a paper clip or a wheel-barrow is because people have been using them for decades or centuries. But the USPTO seems to have lost the notion of "prior art" if they are considering issuing a patent to ElectricImp for "BlinkUp", something that has been around for decades, although without the fancy (trademarked) name. Or McDonalds filing a 55-page application for a patent on how to make a hot deli sandwich.http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/28/patently-absurd-ham-sandwich-edition/

author: Alexei.Polkhanov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2014, 03:24:02 am
content: Well in Canada if you published/disclosed something you still have a year grace period during which you can patent it. Only one year.

author: bwat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2014, 07:49:40 am
content: Quote from: mariush on July 09, 2014, 08:04:24 pmIf this were true we wouldn't see any patents at all.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2014, 08:36:45 am
content: Legally you're absolutely right - from a practical perspective it probably doesn't make any difference.I think it is more a way of explicitly releasing your design for public use and modification. Without saying it explicitly, many (especially amateurs with a poor understanding of IP law) will assume they can't use it, and even if they know better may consider it poor form to directly copy. Encourage participation and the sort of behaviour you want to see from the community.Also IP law is ripe for a massive overhaul, and providing an obvious license now may give retroactive permission for something that becomes illegal by default in the future.Personally I think if you're going to call something open source hardware it should be about the rights to effectively modify and distribute modifications rather than plain copying. To me, this means using open CAD tools and file formats, open toolchains, parts with available datasheets, etc.

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2014, 09:15:23 pm
content: I basically wanted to see if anyone researched these "OSHW legal framework's" and found a practical use. My research concluded that they lack legal teeth and are therefore worse than worthless.Terms like OSHW license, legal framework, etc =>WANKI found no reason why 'open' designs are not released completely into the public domain by completely forfeiting their copyright.Since any OSHW design can be copied and soldLEGALLY, regardless of what OSHW license might be violated.... what's the point of adding a bunch of legal jargon to essentially say:"I have an ego and want credit for my work. If you don't comply, I'll ruin your reputation in the OSHW community."...?If that's all you want; just say it. No need for anything more.Although, even then, you're reputation enforcement is limited to the electronic hobby community. A community largely indifferent to this type of defamation. How many 3D printer clones are in violation of one of these licenses? The fact that anyone could rip off an OSHW design anonymously makes the defamation even more ridiculous/useless.Patents:Those patent legal fees/times agree with my own experience. Although any comments about how fast tech moves is purely pandering to the idea that SparkFun is constantly innovating. It's all about the money.Although I wouldn't say patents are useless for small companies. Small companies need to cross license with large companies just to produce simple things in established spaces. Try breaking into the TV market without infringing on at least a dozen of Samsung or Panasonic's ridiculous patents regarding the use of an 'optically transparent' screen, or mounting points in the back (as opposed to the front!).Copyright being automatic:Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2014, 10:33:37 pmIt actually does.Click the US Government's Copyright Office link where it gives instructions on how to enforce yourautomaticcopyright.As I mentioned, although copyright is indeed automatic, if you wish to sue for infringement you need to register your copyright first.Just because someone posts their project on their personal blog, doesn't meanThe Wayback Machineinstantly archives it. Someone could register your design before you. If you decide to take them to court, good luck convincing the judge that your personal blog posted this board artwork or documentation before someone else registered it.OSHW licenses as a way of explicitly saying it's for public use:Why can't you just say:"To my knowledge no part of this design is protected by a patent and I release all copyright claims to this material (board art, documentation, software, etc) into the public domain. It's free to use, copy, modify, sell in any way you like."...?I don't think it gets any more effective. 'OSHW licenses' and talk of 'legal frameworks' discourages participation because people think they could potentially break the law or get hassled if they attempt to clone one 'incorrectly'.I grew up with paper magazines like Nuts and Volts. People freely posted designs without licenses. What changed? The only thing I can think is that since software now falls under legal protection andopen source softwarebecame a 'thing', people think hardware designs are now somehow protected so they need a license too. Or maybe they think OSHW licenses allow them to get assistance, then have some kind of legal protection when they go to sell it themselves. Actually that last one might be the most apt. Sad.Poe's OSHW License:A) No credit be given to the original authorB) It can only be used in a purely commercial capacity.Reading this right now:http://www.pololu.com/blog/27/thoughts-on-open-source-hardware

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 10, 2014, 09:49:59 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on July 10, 2014, 09:15:23 pmBecause:a) They want to ensure attributionb) They want to ensure that if people build upon their work then they give give back to the community.Two very huge and central concepts of OSHW

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 10, 2014, 09:53:51 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on July 10, 2014, 09:15:23 pmYou are free to do that if that's what you want.Others chose to use a legal framework developed by lawyers that (hopefully) ensures people play by the rules.Legal frameworks make the whole scene look legitiment to large companies, encourages them to participate, and attempts to standardise the process across the community.You are free to make up your own short two line legal framework and promote it. Go for it.If it meets the OSHW ideals then people might use it, otherwise you are also free to form your own community and promote it's use that way.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2014, 11:05:48 pm
content: When people ask me about licensing on my FPGA stuff I sometimes include my very own license:"This has served a purpose for me, you are free to do whatever you want with this."People howl that "That isn't even a proper license! how can you do that?". I just reply "Take it or leave it. it isn't my problem to sort out your legal issues".

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 12:00:45 am
content: You could use this license instead of a custom text:http://www.wtfpl.net/about/The Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL) is a free software license.Quote

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 12:15:40 am
content: All this 'open source' license stuff is bullshit"you can copy it provided my name stays attached (so i can have my 5 minutes of fame)""provided you don't make money" (if it don't make any everyone should be poor)"if you correct my flagrant design flaws you need to tell me.. " (they call that 'giving back to the community' , a weak cover for 'fix my problems')"you need to provide all documentation in a format of my liking or i will growl" ... (i'm too lazy / poor to learn or use real tools)Want to give it away ? make it public domain. That, for me, is the only true 'open' format.no strings attached , can't sue me , do what you want.anything else is not truly open.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 12:33:02 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 10, 2014, 09:49:59 pmElement A adds no 'value' to the design. No return value will come of it also. it's not like the attributee will get anything for it (apart from his 5 minutes of fame and then be another speck of dust on a cosmic scale)<devil's advocate mode>element b : if i improve that design greatly why should i serve as an educator to the dimwit that made the original crap ? i am not here to educate the unwashed masses. i will take the pieces that work , trash the rest.<hypothesis mode on>Let's say someone makes a schematic with an led and a resistor containing the formula to calculate a value of the resistor for a given supply voltage. This schematic is released under this open source stuff as a CC-BA-somethingthat means from now on , anyone that 'builds upon' needs to release his mods ? So, if i add a switch to turn the led on and off i need to release this schematic ? Sorry bub, i bread boarded it and it sits in my cupboard illuminating the shelf. I can't be arsed to write up a document , draw the schematic , slap on the CC-BA licence and publish that. And i sure as hell am not going to write 'based on an idea by Nitwit McDumbfuck' on that little board i made.worse : let's say i make a little box with battery switch ,resistor led and sell that as a stick-on thingie to illuminate shelves in cupboards. i sell this in my stores cheap in mass quantity. I am unaware of the CC-BA from Nitwit McDumb.... because , you know, this is a simple design that any 5 year old can make. suddenly i get blasted on forums because violating this licence...here is the problem : these licences do NOT take into account for prior art.I see a lot of circuits popping up that get a licence slapped on that are so simple that chances are very big someone did exactly the same years ago. This opens a huge can of worms.All of a sudden someone claims 'rights' on something that has been available for years.If we are going there : i claim rights to inhaling oxygen and exhaling Co2. Shall i give my bankaccount ? i will sue every living person, and animal and every combustion engine maker. Pay up or suffocate !the above is exaggerated but i have seen circuitry that is basically an atmega with a crystal and two caps , and ftdi chip and an lcd display.All of a sudden the arduino crowd blares : you ripped this from an arduino schematic. No i didn't! I took the apps schematic from the datasheet of Atmel (cpuu, reset circuit crystal and caps) and slapped on a display. i took the FTDI portion form the datasheet of FTDI (ftdi chip , usb connector , 2 caps and a resistor).Just because i wired up an isp connector and an ftdi chip to the uart does NOT make this an arduino or something based on an arduino. i am not using the arduino bootloader. so shut up and go away. the hardware circuitry for an arduino is so simple that anyone could have come up with it. so what gives you the rights over this circuit ?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 12:41:13 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 11, 2014, 12:15:40 amWhat's wrong with wanting to be identified as the original designer?QuoteWrong. You can't do that if you want to use the OSHW name and logo.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 12:47:53 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 11, 2014, 12:33:02 amDemonstrably wrong.Your name being spread can lead to all sorts of opportunities.Not always the case of course, it could lead to nothing, but in some cases it does lead to benefits.QuoteWho says you are obligated to "educate" anyone?The whole idea of reciprocal licensing in the OSHW movement is to encourage and foster an attitude of giving back.If this is not encouraged (and essentially "enforced" by way of license et.al) then the movement dies and people will go back to not sharing anything.Sure, it's not a perfect system, but surely you can't argue with the results to the community?QuoteOnly if you do so for commercial gain.There is no obligation on personal projects for your own use.QuoteSure, that can be an issue.Same thing with patents et.al.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 03:04:39 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 11, 2014, 12:15:40 amWhy should it be black and white? Is this a question of semantics for you?Copyright is really the only thing that applies, and only barely, and by default no copying or derivative works are allowed at all. What is the problem with granting those rights under conditions? It is no different than a commercial license in that sense, just substantially less restrictive.Personally I think Creative Commons is an appropriate license for the artwork and documentation; I use 3-clause BSD for code.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 07:23:35 am
content: Does anyone have any examples of an open source license actually being held up in court and resulted in actual legal action against the violator?I know it's not hardware per say, but the first thing that come into my mind are the vast majority of the android phone manufacturers violating the GPL by not releasing kernel source. I've heard of lots of violations but can't think of any legal action that resulted in the violator having to actually do anything. If it's not enforceable, or no one is willing to do any enforcing, its essential worthless. Like EULAs.The real problem (or awesome aspect depending on how you look at it) with open source hardware is that your average person not already working in the industry has no idea how much is involved in turning design files into an actual physical assembled tested product. You could give them everything they need to make something including instructions and it's still too much of a hassle for most people, even technical people. Even if someone has had a few boards made at Itead before or something, it's another HUGE step to making a piece of hardware in production volumes. I think this is a big reason why so many well intending kickstarters fail as well. People think to themselves "hey I hacked one prototype together, I can totally make a business out of this" and not realize how much they don't know about the physical process (let alone the money side of things). The cost of failure is just too high to use the guess/check/fix/respin method for hardware manufacturing.And that's my take on why more open source hardware projects don't get "stolen". It's not some loyalty to the original maker/community or some essentially unenforceable license. It's just hard and expensive to do production runs of hardware and the market usually isn't there to support more people making the same thing.

author: bwat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 07:49:28 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on July 11, 2014, 07:23:35 amLess than 5 minutes of googling gavehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org. I don't know how accurate this description is of the cases involving Fortinet and D-Link. Anyway, licences are very enforcable. The legal systems of the developed world don't give a hoot about trendy attitudes to old, established, laws. Copyright isn't going to change anytime soon as too many livelihoods depend upon it.Quote from: free_electron on July 11, 2014, 12:15:40 amI'm no fan of certain licences but even I can tell that what you've written is more opinion than fact. If you don't like somebody else's licence terms then ignore their work. Simple.Quote from: EEVblog on July 11, 2014, 12:47:53 amLetting people see your work in a way that protects your rights is a useful way for techies to demonstrate ability. You can show potential employers/clients what you are capable of without discussing previous projects that your old employers/clients would rather you didn't discuss in too much detail.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2014, 08:06:40 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on July 11, 2014, 07:23:35 amI agree, and I suspect it's as much as anything, that the kinds of products people make as part of an OSHW project are the kinds that only really appeal to people who could build their own anyway.High volume consumer stuff is, as a rule, incredibly integrated and bespoke these days. Its architecture bears little resemblance to the kinds of circuits that amateurs might build out of off-the-shelf parts, and it's produced in enormous volumes. That's what allows it to be as cheap as it is, and why anything a bit out of the ordinary starts to look expensive.Suppose the target market for, say, a Bluetooth enabled data-logging cat feeder equates to a few hundred units a year. Budget even a ridiculously optimistic £10k for mechanical tooling, the same again for EMC and safety testing, and nothing whatsoever for the time taken to actually do all the design, testing and set-up of the manufacturing process. That's still £20k in cold, hard cash that has to be recouped over a total sales volume of (say) 2000 units.That makes the cost price £10 for amortised setup costs, plus (say) another £20 cost price for the product itself, £5 postage and another £7 for VAT just on the cost price... that's £42 retail before you make a single bean in profit. For a cat bowl.Or: you publish instructions on how to convert an existing, off-the-shelf cat feeder, by fitting it with a home made PCB that can be ordered for £5 as part of an on-line group buy, and populated with another £5 worth of parts.That's why I'm not surprised at all that hobby projects tend not to get commercialised.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2014, 10:48:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 11, 2014, 12:47:53 amLet me rephrase that: it brings no value to the design itself. An led circuit by goofy123 is not more valuable than an identical circuit mady by furball456 so to speak.So this should not be part of a licence. The name of the inventor serves no functional purpose. Not being allowed to copy it for money does serve a functional purpose.QuoteSomething was released under sharealike or 'give back' terms. I took the design , modded it , fixed some design flaws and greatly improved it with my idea's. Why should i need to disclose the techniques or tricks or idea's i came up with. If i want to do so, fine no problem. Of i want to keep that know-how for me, equally fine. The freedom to share, or not to share. The licenceing terms take away that freedom. Less freedom is less 'open'.. Public domain does not step on this freedom.Quotenoticed the devils advocate warning right ? I am pointing towards the 'freedom' aspect. Freedom to give back, or not to give back. Public domain leaves this free. Open source takes away that freedom.QuoteAnd that's where it rubs... I gave the second example. I make a little led light: battery, switch , resistor , led. Sell this for 3$ in volume. All of a sudden i get hammered by some dude that claims 'rights' because i 'built upon' his led-resistor circuit.Sure, the resistor led example is stupid , but where do you draw the line ? If i make a circuit with an atmega, crystal, ftdi and usb connector .. That does not make it an arduino ... Even though the wiring is identical. Well, there is only so many ways you can add a crystal and an ftdi to an atmega....This is the problem i see with these licences. They claim rights on circuitry that is trivial and or straight out of the datasheet.Especially the 'build upon' clause is very dangerous. Build upon works symmetrically as well. Take the ftdi away and it still fits the description.. So now any circuit consisting of an atmega and a crystlal is considered 'built upon' an arduino ...That is what i don't like.People are riling against patents, well, this is an even bigger can of worms.Imagine what would have happened if someone had claimed cc-sharealike attributable on print 'hello world'...Any book about programming, any program ever written that printed a string of characters to any output system would be subject to that licence....Whoa....

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 12:07:42 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2014, 10:33:37 pmThat is what I believe is the reality of OSHW is, but tbh I'm not really a "OSHW" fan myself; I much prefer the concept of just putting it out there.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 12:29:54 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 11, 2014, 12:15:40 amAs Dave already -more-or-less- pointed out 'open source' is about creating an eco system for a project which is maintained by several people and/or companies who have a shared motive to create something. Giving back to the community is one of the primary rules for something like that to work. It's like if I have meat and you have vegetables we can have a good stew for dinner. Sometimes 1+1=3.

author: abaxas
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 11:48:30 am
content: To give something away but retain certain rights is probably the worst situation for most designs. Unless something is suitably complicated it's almost all been done before so the license is invalid.Ie if the Chinese wanted to rip off Dave's uCurrent, it would be almost impossible to enforce the license as the circuit is a reference design and has been covered 1000x of times before.The reality is that most OS/OH projects use the license for vanity purposes.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 01:26:34 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 12, 2014, 10:48:24 pmYou are just creating a specific case straw man argument.But ok, you win, in that case where someone "invents" a circuit that has been done before and slaps their name and an OSHW license on it, that's not adding value.But, even in that case, if you were searching for a circuit that did X and you found it on that persons website or wherever with their name on it, then you have benefited fromthempublishing that information that you found. Even if that circuit is not original.I you genuinely came up with the idea yourself, or "know it's always been around", or whatever and did not get your circuit, or part of your circuit) from that person or project, then I doubt the OSHW community will not take your word for it and go around accusing you of stealing the design. The community isn't that anal. These things can be argued successfully if you are ever challenged about them by the community. No one in their right mind would think the exaples you give are "protected" because someone slapped an OSHW on an existing building block circuit.But we are down to arguing specific cases here.QuoteThe key phrase you used there is "I took the design".Youtooksomeone else's design!In that case they have every right to ask that you respect whatever license or rules they released it under so that you couldbenefitfrom it!If you don't like that, then that's your choice, don't go looking at and taking stuff from OSHW licensed designs to begin with.But again, the community isn't that anal here.For example, if you looked at an OSHW schematic and saw asmall partof a circuit you liked, then I don't think anyone would argue that you are obligated to follow the license.OSHW is more about the bigger picture.QuoteNo, the community is not that anal.My OSHW uCurrent for example is essentially just an op-amp and a resistor in a box. The circuit is not new, the concept is not new, and I'm sure no one (including me) in the OSHW community thinks that an op-amp and a resistor current sensor is now a circuit that is "protected" in some way. It's not.No one will care if you use a small part of that circuit in some small part of some unrelated product.But if you produce a product ofsimilar but improved functionalityand sell it commercially to the same target market for the same use and lock away the design based on that circuit then you can bet people will see that as not playing fair.The uCurrent is a good example were you'd have to pretty much copy the whole circuit and concept to get nailed by the OSHW community police, because it's such a basic building block circuit.QuoteThe line will usually be pretty clear, because the community will let you know.QuoteNot so much. They are simply trying to encourage sharing and giving back, andthatis the big attraction of OSHW.As I've said before, the OSHW mechanism is not perfect, and has lots of potential issues, and I will admit that your concerns are genuine and warranted. But the fact is that it has worked and encouraged sharing on a massive scale that we haven't seen in this industry before. So you try and work with the system that has proven to work, even if it is based on a potential bed of "what if" legal mumbo jumbo.QuoteShow me one case where that has happened.Fact is that virtually no one sues anyone in the OSHW business, and legal frameworks are no enforced. If more of a warm fuzzy legal based way to encourage people to share stuff.OSHW or no OSHW, anyone can get sued at anytime, for anything, that is a fact of life.You can't just look at the "what if's" of the OSHW license legal nitty gritty, because it's much, much bigger than that. You have to look at the big picture.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 01:38:15 pm
content: Quote from: Mr Eastwood on July 13, 2014, 12:07:42 amAnd that's great, and I've done that with stuff too.What I don't understand is people shooting it down. If you don't like the way OSHW hardware works, then don't use the name or logo, just do whatever you want. Most people in the OSHW industry would say more power to you.

author: WackyGerman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 01:48:41 pm
content: Well I thing OSHW is a really good thing , everybody can fix what he want and give it to the next and the other one can look and upgrade if nessesary . Well making $$ with it is not the goal . The journey is the reward

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 03:05:29 pm
content: Licences like GPL or EUPL (which I prefer for it's simplicity) aren't useless, they provide a legal framework including things like reliabilty, which is quite important. Some open source organizations even file suits against companies violating those licences and win. We had several sentences forcing SOHO router vendors to disclose their firmware code because it's based on linux.But there are also situations where a copyright or a licence won't help. I'm involved in the Transistortester project. You'll find tons of Chinese clones at ebay and not a single seller provides a proper documentation or the URL of the original one. Neither do they give any credits, some even modify the firmware to display their name. It doesn't make any sense to go after them or to report them to ebay. For what purpose? If the buyers are looking for a new firmware version or the documentation, they'll come to the project's site sooner or later anyway. And I don't mind if some Chinese make a few bucks. Actually, that's free promotion for the project

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2014, 10:09:03 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 12, 2014, 10:48:24 pmI think you need consider the use-case as well. You're talking raw components here, not how the product is used.If you talk raw circuits then most projects aren'treallythat interesting or unique. No product has a brilliant unique new circuit anymore - it's all based on already existing stuff found in datasheets, app notes, eval boards, the competitors product, or a mix of those things.For example; a big difference I noticed between college and "work" is that copying in college is the biggest sin ever.. and in work it's (mostly) not. As long as you get the job done, and it's done right.We all use the same or similar parts, in similar ways and we all use the same UART pins.. because there aren't many other ways to do it. Why do you think the claims would be on that? Especially by a community that wants to act very open.A positive difference is that OSHW projects would be that it adds as a design source.. in what ways have circuits been put to use? What have other people tried for solving a particular problem?To take your example.. what if you were making that LED light but thought "this switch costs me money - you can turn the LED off if you take the battery out of it's holder". You remove the switch, save $0.25 but you can't operate the LED light in the dark anymore because you can't see the polarity of the battery holder. Doh.If you sold your project commercially, completely closed, I would respond with: "the bastards saved 25cts on a damn switch - It's useless now!"If the project was OSHW, someone may actually come along and post a follow-up idea of adding that switch. Why would he be ashamed that he couldn't figure out the LED driver circuit and copied that part? There are tons of industries that turn around with copied designs..Or wait.. another variant: you sell a "deluxe" version that costs way more for just that single switch. I reckon; if it's a commercial product you would see "hacks" everywhere. "How to hack your LED light to deluxe version for just a fraction of the cost!" Take for example many of the Rigol & Agilent scopes or Flir camera's. Bought capable hardware, but limited by software options? Bullshit - give me that.I don't see a difference except morally.

author: Laertes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 02:40:50 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 11, 2014, 12:15:40 amWell, thing is, that may be possible in the US, but in other countries, public domain doesn't exist. I know for a fact that's the case in Germany and Austria, but I think there's quite a few European countries without the legal concept of releasing something to public domain.So, in the german copyright, if you create something that can possibly be copyrighted(i.e. isn't already there, basically), you cannot forfeit your rights to it. You can put it under an open-source license, but if you don't, you have every right to the thing, even if you published it and you didn't put a restricted license on it explicitly, you might well be able to sue for licensing fees if someone uses it.So if you want to build something and maybe you make a bit of money of it, you can only use stuff that you have a proper license to use, because otherwise you cannot be sure the original creator doesn't sue the hell out of you if your little project does take off and make you a million bucks...That's really the beauty of proper open source licenses: they give you a serious legal framework where you do not actually need to worry about it. This kind of environment is greatly established with open source software, when you read GPL somewhere you know: I can take this and modify it and use it and nobody's gonna raise any fuss about it if I put the authors name somwhere in the comments of the source

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 06:18:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 13, 2014, 01:38:15 pmIt's not so much shooting it down. It's asking : why and what's the point ? You may argue it encourages sharing and giving back. Maybe. For others, the mere fact there is a legal framework with a bunch of rules is a turn-off.I still prefer the Public Domain clause. Only that is freedom.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 06:36:12 am
content: Not really OSHW but the software that is used in here:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dreamsourcelab/dslogic-multifunction-instruments-for-everyoneSo in the comments, just yesterday the following appeared:Quote from: Bert Vermeulen 1 day agoGit Hub:https://github.com/DreamSourceLabThey have three depots:https://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogichttps://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogic-fwandhttps://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogic-hdlI've not verified the claim is right but I guess if someone has time to look at the code they could decide.The point is that sharing sometimes can be taken advantage off if the claim they took the code and gave no credit and changed the copyright to themselves is true.Edit: looked for a little bit and they do have some similarities but not really, then again I didn't look in detail here is the other git hub:https://gitorious.org/sigrok/libsigrok/source/7ee8a00a3c455ea61a857cd3a35ee0010b3b7d89:hardware/fx2lafwThat this source is supposed to be based on:https://github.com/DreamSourceLab/DSLogic-fwhmm open source wars, what next?

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 03:46:31 pm
content: Quote from: Laertes on July 14, 2014, 02:40:50 amDroit d’auteur, an interesting subject. I kind of like the idea. I guess we have sort-of the same thing, with automatic copyright -- but it's not the same, not as fundamental, or morally motivated. In European law, it's a fundamental right of the individual. I think that's cool.I would suppose, if you wanted to take your issue to court, you could make similar arguments -- courts are generally aware of, and sensible to, historical and moral arguments, even if they aren't precisely what's on the books at that time. So in that respect, even though it's not U.S. law, you could potentially follow such an approach, and have a chance of winning on it. But you'd better have a better lawyer than your opponent, too...Tim

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 04:54:24 pm
content: Software is subject to copyrightHardware that's not patented has no protection, anything that gets published and not filed on by the authors within 1 year is public domainas far as I know this lack of protection, free use of prior art, established by publication or sale of the innovation containing hardware without a patent is a universal in patent law - prior art is barred from patent protection - you're not supposed to be able to get a patent for prior art - establishing that something is in fact prior art is an effective defense in a patent suitand of course patents expire - some are abandoned when maintenance fees aren't paid and become unenforceable even sooner

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2014, 05:19:52 pm
content: Quote from: Laertes on July 14, 2014, 02:40:50 amWell said.Serious companies will not touch third party source without a very clear legal status and having standard open source licenses makes the process much easier since chances are they were already reviewed and approved/rejected by the Legal department.I have been involved with projects that use external open source software and the rules are very clear. Some licenses are pre approved, others are pre denied and good luck convincing Legal with the rest. Once used, the external open source stuff is checked in a third party 'sandbox' and never get mingled with original material. When a product is released, it is analyzed for open source dependency and made compliant with the relevant open source licenses. Without standard open source licenses any adoption would be a legal nightmare.

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2014, 06:50:18 pm
content: I would like to narrow the topic if I can.Some people are confusing this topic with open sourceSOFTWARE, others think these licenses include patents, and still others arereallyjust defending the idea of 'open source' or defending their definition of it.I made this post to clarify thelegalaspect. 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 sourceSOFTWARElicenseSEPARATEfrom 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.THATis 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'.THATis 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'sDOCUMENTATIONsince that isallthat'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 orhalfmost 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 itBEFOREyou throw it out there. If you put your design out there first, don'tTHENdemand that I do anything I don't legally have to do, oryou'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.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2014, 06:59:50 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on July 18, 2014, 06:50:18 pmI know of at least one case when the protection of the documentation was also transferred to the design because the documentation described some aspects of the design.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_Bicycle#Court_cases

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2014, 07:16:06 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 18, 2014, 06:59:50 pmThat is not what the the wiki page is saying. The mention of them ALSO copying the manual has no effect on the rest of the paragraph.The article clearly says that the industrial design of the Brompton folding bicycle was protected because of design ques which were added over and above that which was required to be functional. This is similar to adding a platypus to your board artwork. It's a non functional element that adds a signature to your product so your work is recognized in the marketplace. If I remove the platypus and copy only functional parts of the board, no copyright applies to your design.... regardless of what's in the documentation.To be clear, you can add copyrighted material to your OSHW project..... it just can't be functionally part of the design... because then it wouldn't be protected by the OSHW license...so....Glitter is cool I guess....

author: bwat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2014, 07:19:55 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on July 18, 2014, 06:50:18 pmMask works in the US? I spy a (M) on an 8085.

author: Laertes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2014, 09:52:02 pm
content: Quote from: bwat on July 18, 2014, 07:19:55 pmNot really. As I understand it, mask works also have to be filed pretty much like a petty patent or other semiconductor specific patent-like legal thingadoodles in other countries. Unlike other countries, in the US it's not the patent office that takes the registration, but the copyright office. Nonetheless, it's not automatic like SW copyrightNow that I've read up on the subject a bit, I gotta admit that the OP was quite right: The stuff I said about legal frameworks simply does not at all apply to hardware. Sorry.