Talk:Open Source Hardware Licensing: Difference between revisions
Leo.dearden (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'Hrm. A few points arising: I think you've got gratis and libre mixed up. Gratis = at no cost (free as in beer). Libre = without restriction (free as in freedom). Copyleft is abo…') |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I think you've got gratis and libre mixed up. Gratis = at no cost (free as in beer). Libre = without restriction (free as in freedom). Copyleft is about libre, not gratis. | I think you've got gratis and libre mixed up. Gratis = at no cost (free as in beer). Libre = without restriction (free as in freedom). Copyleft is about libre, not gratis. | ||
I'm not sure about the OHL. TAPR has no legal rep. I'd never heard of it or the OHL. The OHL is _very_ broad and I've got a hunch that it's consequently unenforcable. I'd want a relevantly skilled Lawyer to look at it before using it. I also fear that it could have unfortunate side effects, esp. clause 2.4. The OHL is not itself an open source document: no modifications are allowed. | |||
[[User:Leo.dearden|Leo.dearden]] | |||
--- | |||
Leo, good rigorous analysis. I propose we publish a license quickly, then let feedback evolve it over time. The point on enforceability is a good one. We actually have a big time lawyer as one of our fans (product liability law) - we can ask him to review it. I don't know if he has any savvy on open source and enforceability. There is a number of people in our audience that are qualified to comment - it will make for an active blog post. | |||
I added the category License. see the other article there - it may need updating. -Marcin | |||
Latest revision as of 00:47, 7 November 2009
Hrm. A few points arising:
I think you've got gratis and libre mixed up. Gratis = at no cost (free as in beer). Libre = without restriction (free as in freedom). Copyleft is about libre, not gratis.
I'm not sure about the OHL. TAPR has no legal rep. I'd never heard of it or the OHL. The OHL is _very_ broad and I've got a hunch that it's consequently unenforcable. I'd want a relevantly skilled Lawyer to look at it before using it. I also fear that it could have unfortunate side effects, esp. clause 2.4. The OHL is not itself an open source document: no modifications are allowed.
--- Leo, good rigorous analysis. I propose we publish a license quickly, then let feedback evolve it over time. The point on enforceability is a good one. We actually have a big time lawyer as one of our fans (product liability law) - we can ask him to review it. I don't know if he has any savvy on open source and enforceability. There is a number of people in our audience that are qualified to comment - it will make for an active blog post.
I added the category License. see the other article there - it may need updating. -Marcin