Posted by: Administrator
on February 08, 2007 02:25 AM
I'm the author of the Open Hardware License, and I'd like to encourage folks interested in it to join the discussion at <a href="http://technocrat.net/OHL" title="technocrat.net">http://technocrat.net/OHL</a technocrat.net>. I'm taking the comments there very seriously, and there are already some that will probably lead to changes in the final version of the document. If, for example, the definition of "distribute" is troublesome, we can certainly talk about ways to fix that.
Bruce already mentioned that others of Eric's and Russ' concerns have been addressed -- for example, you only need to attempt to email modifications; if the email fails, you've done your bit and your rights under the license continue. There's no single point of failure.
I think the most important thing to note is that from a legal perspective dealing with hardware is quite different than software. Because copyright protects only the expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves, a copyright-based model like the GPL doesn't work well in this area. We use a more contract-based approach, and create a "patent free zone" around the product. The patent language is really a key part of the agreement.
In addition, the OHL limits itself to physical products and the documents that describe them. Code that gets loaded into programmable devices, for example, fits much better into a copyright-based software model. While it might make sense to have a license specifically aimed at VHDL and similar design languages, I don't think shoehorning them into the OHL is the best approach.
Again, if you're interested, please join the discussion. The comment period is open until March 7.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Feedback requested!
Posted by: Administrator on February 08, 2007 02:25 AMBruce already mentioned that others of Eric's and Russ' concerns have been addressed -- for example, you only need to attempt to email modifications; if the email fails, you've done your bit and your rights under the license continue. There's no single point of failure.
I think the most important thing to note is that from a legal perspective dealing with hardware is quite different than software. Because copyright protects only the expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves, a copyright-based model like the GPL doesn't work well in this area. We use a more contract-based approach, and create a "patent free zone" around the product. The patent language is really a key part of the agreement.
In addition, the OHL limits itself to physical products and the documents that describe them. Code that gets loaded into programmable devices, for example, fits much better into a copyright-based software model. While it might make sense to have a license specifically aimed at VHDL and similar design languages, I don't think shoehorning them into the OHL is the best approach.
Again, if you're interested, please join the discussion. The comment period is open until March 7.
John Ackermann
#