Talk:Open Source Hardware Licensing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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…') |
Leo.dearden (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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]] | |||
Revision as of 20:39, 6 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.