Open Hardware Licensing (What a laugh)
stuarti...@googlemail.com
Hardware licensing and the problems of the coverage of copyright and
patent.
Chris Watkins kindly forwarded my original email (
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/t/2a1d00cc9626e998 )
from the creativecommons site.
The only thing that is humorous about the topic is the common
acceptance that copyright has major problems and that patents are only
valid in the corporate world. Read "This house believes that existing
copyright laws do more harm than good.” ( http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/144
) posted to me by Luis Ibanez. We all know that current IP is
restrictive and doesn't work well for the common man basically because
the legal of enforcing IP is beyond the means of most.
1. I have a hardware design that firstly due to its complexity I can't
really afford the patent costs.
2. I don't really want to patent the design as I really see IP as a
major influence to the reasons why a plethora of proprietary systems
exist especially in the lighting and automation arena (the target of
my design)
3. Open Hardware licensing is in the real world an ideology rather
than a reality. I really believe in the idea of Open Community Energy
Saving Technology personally the idea of IP for green technology is
just an indication of excess of the consumerist sh*** world we live
in. LOL where is my soapbox.
Please help me, I really want to progress on an idea and leverage the
open community to provide a system that will greatly reduce energy
usage. The electronics and programming yeah I can do, open licensing
and actually have valid protection; Christ what a nightmare!
Many Thanks
Stuart
StuartI...@HotMail.Com
Bryan Bishop
> Please help me, I really want to progress on an idea and leverage the
> open community to provide a system that will greatly reduce energy
> usage. The electronics and programming yeah I can do, open licensing
> and actually have valid protection; Christ what a nightmare!
I don't know what you mean by "valid protection". I can build weapons
and giant sticks to poke people with, is this what you need?Basically
your entire email boils down to this issue of 'valid protection' but
you haven't gone into much detail, so I don't know what to say.
stuarti...@googlemail.com
Apologies I made reference to the following (
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/t/2a1d00cc9626e998 )
"Getting straight to the point I have design for an energy saving
lighting
system which has possibilities of saving up to 80% of current
incandescent
systems.
The base layer combines master and slave network nodes and
corresponding
electronic designs and microprocessor firmware. It also runs on a
streamlined bespoke communication protocol.
The design goal is to maximise functionality for the least cost and
confirm
to current installation and regulation practises.
That’s enough of the electronics gubage I am here to plead my case and
show
my ignorance to the validity of Open Source Hardware.
1. Hopefully someone will tell me that I am wrong in my assumption
that the
real world doesn't lend itself to the ideology of open source
hardware.
Copyleft has problems with the norm of patent and even though there
are a
small amount of open source hardware projects their validity is still
to be
tested.
2. As I say I am unsure of copyleft to specific hardware layouts, but
references to the network architecture in terms of implementation and
layout
are more likely?
3. Firmware of master and slave nodes; Software no problem.
4. Network protocol again I am unsure of to what extent.
I having been working on the design for four years and wish to release
a
documented system on the web and have a huge headache in terms of
licensing.
I am quite prepared to open my IP with the goal of any usage providing
reference to the original source. I am passionate about energy saving
and
also have a dislike to corporate IP but the main thing is that an open
source collaborative effort could accelerate a common standard in a
confused
arena. Just to kick-start the idea is of importance and I would
greatly
appreciate any help.
Many Thanks
Stuart
StuartIanNay...@HotMail.Com"
Bryan...
Its a standard open source agreement where I say use it, modify it,
make it, make money all I ask is that you give me the reference i
deserve.
I doubt in terms of hardware even that simple layer is achievable but
if anybody could help with relevant licensing.
Thanks
Stuart
On May 6, 1:05 pm, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please help me, I really want to progress on an idea and leverage the
> > open community to provide a system that will greatly reduce energy
> > usage. The electronics and programming yeah I can do, open licensing
> > and actually have valid protection; Christ what a nightmare!
>
> I don't know what you mean by "valid protection". I can build weapons
> and giant sticks to poke people with, is this what you need?Basically
> your entire email boils down to this issue of 'valid protection' but
> you haven't gone into much detail, so I don't know what to say.
>
> 1 512 203 0507
ben lipkowitz
> Apologies about the title but I have to question the validity of Open
> Hardware licensing and the problems of the coverage of copyright and
> patent.
basically, copyright only applies to the 'creative expression' of your
specific design, for example the 'artwork' of a circuit board. This
doesn't necessarily mean that any circuit board is copyrighted. It's much
harder to copyright more tangible things like gearboxes or airplanes;
typically you hae to file for an industrial design copyright or design
patent. so the net result of this is that GPL and whatnot are totally
inadequate for what we want to do, which is force people who create
derived artifacts to share their source code with the users of those
artifacts.
I have seen a lot of "open hardware licenses" and most of them deal with
circuit boards as the main focus. There seems to be a sort of cognitive
glitch where people can't make the distinction between the design of a
circuit board and the actual circuit board. It's important, because while
I may be bound by your license if I want to redistribute the design of the
board (why would I do that?) but not at all under any obligation if I'm
just selling circuit boards (pretend I'm a chinese factory owner) so we
end up with people owning the physical product but no idea where the
design came from or what modifications have been done to it.
The only legal framework I know of (I dont know everything) that stands a
chance of holding up is a click-wrap contract that forbids you from
redistributing the design material to anyone who has not also signed a
non-disclosure agreement, but also requires you to do stuff like share the
source code if you make a physical product. Then any physical products
that get sold without accompanying source code would be the result of
either reverse engineering or some sort of semi-illegal information
transfer. (is breach of contract illegal?)
I dont like this scheme because it requires everyone to sign a contract
(and they may not be capable, for example minors) and it puts huge
restrictions on where the data can be sent, which just makes things hard
on everyone.
So there you have it: it's hopeless, according to my understanding of the
legal system.
Bryan Bishop
> Its a standard open source agreement where I say use it, modify it,
> make it, make money all I ask is that you give me the reference i
> deserve.
> I doubt in terms of hardware even that simple layer is achievable but
> if anybody could help with relevant licensing.
There have been some OSH licenses, but none of them have gained
wide-spread attention or use by anybody in particular. For this
reason, I doubt you would be interested in them. They have been
referenced multiple times on this mailing list, so just search the
license maybe for Bruce Perens, for instance, or something. Before you
verse yourself with OSH license knowledge, could you answer a few
quick questions? How many people do you think should be using an OSH
license before you would consider using it for your system? Does it
depend on whether or not it has been tested in court of law? Does it
depend on whether or not some patent troll has already tried to take a
swing at it and has missed (i.e., not been able to get away with
anything)? Whether or not somebody has built it already?
- Bryan
stuarti...@googlemail.com
Thanks for your reply.
I have browsed over the 'Bruce Perens' stuff and the TAPR project. As
you say the sources are few and I have found that many references seem
to dwindle to a standstill.
I have a wrapper that says 'May contains nuts' maybe I should use
that. Sorry but I have spent a huge amount of time on the project and
the idea of Open Source Hardware is such a worthy cause.
As far as I know the design is completely unique as its operation and
implementation has zero similar products or references. That has been
consistantly checked over the project length.
I have read in many articles that copyleft (open source protection) is
based on copyright and that patent law which governs hardware isn't
copyright at all. To cover hardware with copyright doesn't mean
anything as far as I can tell and if published any manufacture could
grab my design and not even have the courtesy to even provide a
provide cover for licence agreements but I have to question if that
snickers bar wrapper is legally equivalent.
Many Thanks
Stuart
On May 6, 1:32 pm, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1 512 203 0507
Smári McCarthy
Hash: SHA1
Stuart,
We have had discussions on this topic with everybody and his
grandmother. You name the big name in the free culture movement and
we've talked to him. Teams of lawyers, hackers, etc, everybody is at a loss.
Generally, the entire subject is a bitch and nobody in his right mind
really wants to deal with it.
Right now, it's simple: Patents suck, copyright is slightly better but
still sucks, everything else is vacuous and sucks even more as a result.
Open Hardware licenses are nothing more than an uneasy social contract
on the physical object side and a manhandling of copyright law on the
design side.
As I pointed out to somebody yesterday, using somebody's design files
without permission is a breach of copyright, but making new design files
from somebody's object is completely fine as long as no patents are
involved.
- Smári
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkoBlBIACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvGoZACdF4Ca/DnLlT8i5PyrK3zEYNVG
7aoAnis0F2edmxtuDOP2+C3LzKpQd/ei
=iwct
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ben lipkowitz
> based on copyright and that patent law which governs hardware isn't
> copyright at all. To cover hardware with copyright doesn't mean
> anything as far as I can tell and if published any manufacture could
> grab my design and not even have the courtesy to even provide a
> reference to the original source.
stuart, if your ownly consideration is to require attribution, you could
look into trademarking your protocol's name and logo. presumably since
you'd be the first market mover you'd establish that 'brand' as the
de-facto standard, and require a certification fee to use the brand
logo/name. see for instance i2c versus two-wire, or kleenex vs facial
tissue. so, for clarity, you'd be trademarking the name of the standard,
not your product line's brand, and allowing only manufacturers to use the
trademark if they refer to the original standard specification somewhere.
stuarti...@googlemail.com
Great informative reply and unfortunately it did seem that way to me.
Your reply has me sighing with resignation.
I think the saddest reality is that patent law is purely in the realms
of the corporate and beyond my means.
I could patent the master, slave and protocol from £600 to £1200 which
is a tad expensive for a design that is to be opened to the community.
I doubt a patented system would have any chance as I am sure it would
be stubbed by the open source community.
The actual idea of spreading and controlling NDA's to all party's is
great, that someone can actually provide an open source method with
some chance of working is a first. The actuality of employing that
method has me sighing with depression now.
I would like to go on a rant and a rave about the current state of
solid state lighting.
Philips, Osram, Kree and all the other bigwigs are posting patents
like mad at the moment for the purposes of licensing. This has nothing
to do with invention rights, what they are doing is filing a
proliferation of patents where they are swapping licence deals amongst
themselves purely to stop any new upstarts having any chance of
entering their monopoly. Any new invention even though it doesn't
infringe and was original, could be dragged through the courts because
it would have to prove how it doesn't infringe on any patent cited.
It is complete madness as the method for protection of innovation is
being used to stop innovation, where corporate’s grin at competition
'Bring it on, do you think your big enough'.
From memory Philips bought a Colour Kinetics for several hundred
million purely for there patent rights in conjunction with solid state
lighting. Colour Kinetics was a small company and the valuation was a
hundredth of the purchase price. The patents purchased are very flimsy
but again there was a large quantity of patents and you would have to
prove everyone wrong and shed out several million in legal fees just
to get the ball rolling.
Anyway I am off to Afghanistan anyone know how to use an AK47?
Many Thanks
Stuart
PS please ignore that last comment. lol
On May 6, 1:29 pm, ben lipkowitz <f...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
Smári McCarthy
Hash: SHA1
stuarti...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Anyway I am off to Afghanistan anyone know how to use an AK47?
They're very easy to use. While I'm not going to go into the details
here, may I ask where in Afghanistan are you going?
If you're headed into Nangahar, I recommend stopping by the Taj. My
regards to Tim and the others there. Also, be sure to visit the Fab Lab.
> PS please ignore that last comment. lol
I take gun-related comments very seriously.
- Smári
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkoBq0AACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvECQwCguXsgkXaFfVu2zo9mw7tbO0o2
+3AAoOv7gWhNiIeJAsX/ZGCxCP2ChkxF
=EWYj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
stuarti...@googlemail.com
majors, retire with millions in the bank and stick my fingers up to
the rest of humanity. Lol apologies.
I have a design idea that I know without a doubt has the possibility
of being a commercial success but that is just a start.
I would love to be able to provide a qty licensing agreement where
>10,000 units annual require a royalty (some small percentage for my
Guinness fund). Cottage industries would be able to download
schematics for free of even buy blank boards or ready to go units.
Where the big guys, if it ever did hit those heady heights wouldn't
blink at miniscule licensing payments.
Unfortunately that would just introduce another proprietary system in
arena completely confused with a plethora of systems and architecture.
The end goal is to provide the next generation of intelligent control
systems and energy saving features that scale from humble residential
to massive civic installation. I am not saying my particular design is
going to do that but I have some ideas that reduce copper,
installation and energy usage by up to 80%. The problem is that we
either need a Microsoft to create a single platform (Yeah the devil we
know) or it will stay at high end installations due to the high costs
of employing so many bespoke systems.
I want an open source collaboration into the whole arena of HVAC,
Lighting, Security Domotics to provide a core that enables cross
platform and hardware interoperability. I really believe it can only
be done open source and the current spaghetti of current offerings is
absolute proof to this.
Licensing is another point as there are many control groups which are
apparently open source and transparent. The problem is say for ZigBee
for a small developer the cost of joining the ZigBee working group
probably isn't worth there while. The same goes for CBus, Bacnet, Lin,
Can, Dali, X10, Insteon, ZWave, HomePlug and the list goes on.
To be honest I know the problems and I am really groping for a
solution as any project needs to be guidance and a direction. What I
believe is that if I give my IP to kick-start an open source
collaboration it might snowball into something bigger.
Many Thanks
StuartI...@HotMail.Com
On May 6, 3:13 pm, ben lipkowitz <f...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
Greg
Am I missing something here?
From: Smári McCarthy <sm...@anarchism.is>
To: openmanu...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 11:22:43 AM
Subject: [Open Manufacturing] Re: Open Hardware Licensing (What a laugh)
sasha
Basically: load, aim , shot. Very easy.
Greetings from Serbia
PS: maybe this sounds heretical but why just not dedicate the
invention to the public domain?
Sasha
Smári McCarthy
Hash: SHA1
sasha wrote:
> PS: maybe this sounds heretical but why just not dedicate the
> invention to the public domain?
Are you crazy? Haven't you heard of the tragedy of the commons? The
public domain is dangerous! It will be wasted up and there will be none
left!
*ducks*
(sorry for the terrible humor)
- Smári
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkoBzbkACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvE/GwCgn7RgCExswlBgfv2tSaZkiUmE
XVcAnApCYEdxn1JCDvAczIKSN/pmruBU
=Vgtt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
stuarti...@googlemail.com
with an apology.
I don't like guns myself and it was in irony of what I percieve as
Englishman purely a corporate led war. I don't really want to make any
further comments that pay no respect to the losses of all.
Can I get back to the main lead and what I wish to achieve and far
enough if it means releasing this Public Domain then fair enough at
least it would stop derivations being patented.
My main concern is providing a hardware platform that follows a Ubuntu
style philosphy that attracts and interests a community dedicated to
the promotion of the cost reduction and energy saving of modern
network lighting systems.
StuartI...@HotMail.Com
Further Apologies
On May 6, 6:05 pm, sasha <mrkf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway I am off to Afghanistan anyone know how to use an AK47?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
>
> Basically: load, aim , shot. Very easy.
> Greetings from Serbia
>
> PS: maybe this sounds heretical but why just not dedicate the
> invention to the public domain?
>
> Sasha
>
sasha
neither. They are machines made for killing people. Nasty things.
I think I understand your goal. But if I may so, no amount of
licensing will form a community around this project to which you have
devoted probably a lot of time and energy. Its the project itself that
matters - it attracts attention (users, supporters,developers, funds)
or it does not.
I say public domain because it is an option. Open source licences are
just the watered down versions of public domain.
I say "open source" but what I really I think is free.
What is the danger if someone gives their work in public domain? Once
in in public domain it stays there. You can take the design from there
and do whatever you want with it (copyright it for example), but the
original still stays in public domain free for use, development,
reuse, modification,commercial exploitation whatever.
If you want an idea to develop, is there any other way than to share
it with others? If they use it it will grow and develop. Is there a
better way to share than to share completely without artificial
licenses?
Sasha
Paul D. Fernhout
Public License).
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
About ten years ago I tried to talk to Richard Stallman about the
implications of the GPL for physically manufactured items, but he said he
was only focusing on software. I myself don't know all the implications. But
basically, the GPL requires people who redistribute something to accompany
it with the source code (or a pointer to where they can download the source
code). For a physical object, would this in theory mean that anyone getting
the physical objects would have to have access to the design files somehow?
I'm not sure. It's a new area of interpretation. Also, then anyone making
derivatives of the design should be obligated to share them. (Also, as a
business model, if you are the only contributor, you could still license
your plans under other terms to manufacturers who wanted to make proprietary
derivatives.)
Here are some GPL hardware related mentions:
http://www.rowetel.com/ucasterisk/hardware.html
"In December 2005 I expressed an interest in building a range of line
interface hardware cards for the Blackfin. A key point was to make the
designs GPL, like the Blackfin STAMP hardware. This means anyone is free to
copy and build on the hardware designs."
While reverse engineering is legal most places as far as figuring out
function, I don't know how far that goes if you do a complete copy of a
circuit board that is copyrighted? Copying an entire copyrighted circuit
board layout identically based on copying the original seems like it would
violate copyright to me (even if the circuit itself cannot be copyrighted).
And as old comment by Richard Stallman (1999):
"Richard Stallman -- On "Free Hardware""
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-22-005-05-NW-LF
"A number of people have asked the GNU Project if we would like to branch
out from free software into free hardware designs, and expressed their
interest in working on them. Some people have even suggested a project to
make free chip designs. ... People often ask about the possibility of using
the GNU GPL or some other kind of copyleft for hardware designs. Firmware
such as programs for programmable logic devices or microcoded machines are
software, and can be copylefted like any other software. For actual
circuits, though, the matter is more complex. Circuits cannot be copylefted
because they cannot be copyrighted. Definitions of circuits written in HDL
(hardware definition languages) can be copylefted, but the copyleft covers
only the expression of the definition, not the circuit itself. Likewise, a
drawing or layout of a circuit can be copylefted, but this only covers the
drawing or layout, not the circuit itself. What this means is that anyone
can legally draw the same circuit topology in a different-looking way, or
write a different HDL definition which produces the same circuit. Thus, the
strength of copyleft when applied to circuits is limited. However,
copylefting HDL definitions and printed circuit layouts may do some good
nonetheless. It is probably not possible to use patents for this purpose
either. Patents do not work like copyrights, and they are very expensive to
obtain. Whether or not a hardware device's internal design is free, it is
absolutely vital for its interface specifications to be free. We can't write
free software to run the hardware without knowing how to operate it.
(Selling a piece of hardware, and refusing to tell the customer how to use
it, strikes me as unconscionable.) But that is another issue. "
There are also lots of comment. Here is one:
"Steve Wilson - Subject: Stallman not clueful about HW design ( Jun 22,
1999, 13:09:55 )"
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-22-005-05-NW-LF-0015
"This article illustrates that Stallman just doesn't
understand hardware design along with all of the
options available. First my bonafides - I'm a chip designer - code Verilog
for a living. Before that I worked as a board level
designer for 15 years. Hopefully that makes me clueful.
There are two aspects of Hardware...the design and the
physical model of same. Most people interested in
Copylefted hardware are really after the designs being
copylefted. Design Databases -whether they be schematics
or an HDL description are just as easy to copy as
GCC source code. As for creating the "model" of the design he is partially
right and in most cases this might be a hobbiest pursuit
initially. If we're talking about simple stuff - ham radio
operators and other hardware enthusiasts have been building
one-of copies of hardware for generations now. If we
are talking about Processor designs, etc, i.e. chip design
a different cost economy comes into play that Stallman
is correct about. It isn't terribly cheap to make your 1
copy of a micro-processor you designed...though even that
can be dealt with by FPGA's and the like. This isn't cheap -
but you can at least test out your design in this manner.
Further - the tools to DO hardware design that are publically
available aren't really available yet. There are some
decent moves to fix that. See http://www.geda.seul.org
for some examples. In my mind - that needs to be
accomplished BEFORE we can seriously talk about free
chip designs. In any case - the designs themselves would be of value
and I see no reason that you can't GPL same. Steve Wilson"
Or another:
"George Hademenos - Subject: End of Tyrannical Hardware Firms ( Jul 11,
1999, 08:24:41 )"
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-22-005-05-NW-LF-0046
"I don't disagree with RMS very often
but as a minor adjustment here, let me
say that the prohibitive costs Richard
speaks of are dropping rapidly and improving the
feasibility of a free hardware foundation...
this is the only way to utterly destry
all the tyrannical hardware companies
that have exploited,abused, and thieved
their way into powerful and corrupt positions.
The FHF and the FSF are both necessary
and complimentary to achieving true freedom
for a global society. Let the work begin ASAP
on both fronts....Make no mistake this is the
revolution and it needs to deal with all
corrupted dimensions that exist. Also,
I am looking forward to those backward
extending GNOME to take X out of the picture
entirely and give us a better GNU client/server
windowing system...and freeing us from the
abuse of X and the OpenSourceLicense that
continues to foster greed and corruption which
results in a loss of societal welfare."
Or:
"Daniel Pierce - Subject: Where are the robots? ( Jul 12, 1999, 20:20:22 )"
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-22-005-05-NW-LF-0047
"Computer processing speeds are hitting the giga hertz level. Ram sizes are
hitting giga byte levels. Hard drives tens of giga bytes. All this power and
it can't do windows. Not the Microsoft kind, I mean the ones in your wall.
Human sized robots ought to be everywhere. The Open Source comunity can do
the software around Linux. To have robots, the software engineers need to
get the EE guys to make an open source robot design. Do it in a standard CAD
format. Let anyone build it. Let anyone work on the hardware and software
design."
Anyway, I was also interested in what happens when you copyleft a design
for, say, a chair. When someone makes and distributes that chair from the
design, do they have to also make the design accessible in source form (like
CAD design files)? I would think so, but I am not sure.
--Paul Fernhout
Vinay Gupta
Look, the problem is this: GPL enforceability rests on strong
copyright law.
Hardware, however, is typically not covered by copyright, leaving
patent.
Patents are expensive.
So you can patent-with-open-license if you can afford it, or you can
publish and it drops into the public domain (i.e. is no longer
patentable) and some other bastard can patent things *around* or
*enclosing* your invention, and then you're an unhappy camper.
Been through this with the Hexayurt and there's no good answer right
now. I strongly tend towards the public-domain-and-pray approach,
personally.
Vinay
--
Vinay Gupta
Free Science and Engineering in the Global Public Interest
http://bit.ly/flucode - please follow the Flu Code
if you are in a flu-effected area. It protects us all.
http://guptaoption.com/map - social project connection map
http://hexayurt.com - free/open next generation human sheltering
http://hexayurt.com/plan - the whole systems, big picture vision
Gizmo Project VOIP : (USA) 775-743-1851
Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk/AIM: hexayurt
Twitter: @hexayurt http://twitter.com/hexayurt
UK Cell : +44 (0) 0795 425 3533 / USA VOIP (+1) 775-743-1851
"If it doesn't fit, force it."
ben lipkowitz
> Anyway, I was also interested in what happens when you copyleft a design
> for, say, a chair. When someone makes and distributes that chair from the
> design, do they have to also make the design accessible in source form (like
> CAD design files)? I would think so, but I am not sure.
no, they don't have to make the design accessible
Paul D. Fernhout
--Paul Fernhout
ben lipkowitz
> ben lipkowitz wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>>> Anyway, I was also interested in what happens when you copyleft a design
>>> for, say, a chair. When someone makes and distributes that chair from the
>>> design, do they have to also make the design accessible in source form (like
>>> CAD design files)? I would think so, but I am not sure.
>>
>> no, they don't have to make the design accessible
>
My understanding is that a chair created by following copyrighted
instructions is not a derivative work. If you create a file with a program
then the file is not copyrighted by the program's authors.
(unless it's a screen shot - wtf!)
but then, wikipedia says something like this which totally confuses
everything:
"Copyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the
later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken
from the earlier, underlying work. "
Patrick Anderson
> My understanding is that a chair created by following copyrighted
> instructions is not a derivative work.
Hmm... You might be right, though I'm not yet sure what 'derivative' means.
The GNU GPLv3 uses words such as 'modify', 'propagate', and 'convey' defined as:
>> To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
>> in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
>> exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
>> earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.
>>
>> To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
>> permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
>> infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
>> computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
>> distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
>> public, and in some countries other activities as well.
>>
>> To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
>> parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
>> a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
Patrick Anderson
I think your reasoning is correct to a degree, but there might be a
subtle factor we are missing.
For instance, the GNU AGPL (the Affero GPL) seems to be reaching
*beyond* traditional Copyright to require Users receive "at cost"
access to Sources _Even if they do not 'distribute' in the traditional
sense_.
Is this requirement outside the bounds of Copyright itself, or am I
just looking at things wrong?...
Maybe a Copyright holder can apply *ANY* arbitrary terms with his
license and revoke the potential User's rights unless those terms are
met?
So maybe a license could read "You must paint your cat green before
you can use this Copyrighted work else you are not entitled to it's
use."?
The GNU AGPL section under consideration reads:
13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source
shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3
of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the
following paragraph.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version
3 of the GNU General Public License.
Paul D. Fernhout
I see where you are coming from now. And it is a good argument. I'm not
saying any of this is clear.
Still, there are claims that GPL programs may make on output from the
program when some of the program is somehow included in the output. For
example, if you have use a GPL'd parser generator to create a parser, that
program may copy parts of itself into the result. Often, GPL programs like
GCC explicitely say that the output does not have to be covered by the GPL
license, even thought it does have parts of the original in it to make it
otherwise a derived work.
In the case of manufacturing, could, say, a flower design that was encoded
as data in a CAD design and then carved into a chair be considered something
that was making the chair a derivative work of the original CAD design?
Or, to make it clearer, let's say the CAD file included some famous cartoon
character, would you expect to get sued? :-)
And if so, then why should not the regular curves of the chair or other
structural design elements not be considered derivative?
I don't know.
Clearly, there are distinctive chairs, like the Eames' chairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair_Wood_(LCW)
A lot of this is pretty arbitrary. For example, clothing can not be easily
copyrighted:
http://www.expertbusinesssource.com/blog/720000272/post/700011870.html
"You can’t copyright your clothing designs themselves, but you can copyright
certain of the design elements of your clothing. The distinction between the
clothing itself and such design elements has to do with some basic
principles of copyright law. Copyright extends to original, non-useful works
of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium of expression. “Non-useful” means
that you cannot obtain a copyright on a work that has a functional purpose.
The so-called “useful article” doctrine is a barrier to copyrighting
clothing designs, because clothing is considered to be “inherently
functional.” But certain elements of clothing designs can be copyrighted.
The design embossed or imprinted on textiles or fabrics -- as opposed to the
style, shape, or pattern of the finished garment -- may be entitled to
copyright protection. This means that designs or elements of a fashion may
be copyrightable to the extent that the element can be conceptually or
physically separated from the utilitarian nature of the article."
Now, that argues for your point of view. Of course, then why should CAD
files be copyrightable? Or programs?
And some designers are trying to get the law changed:
"Leading fashion designers lobby to copyright their work to curb the
knockoff industry."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0302/p11s03-algn.htm
"ABS and a growing number of other companies can copy these designs, most
with minor alterations – different ruffles on the Versace skirt, for
instance, or a single dress instead of two pieces on Blanchett's outfit –
because unlike music and movies, fashion apparel cannot be copyrighted. Some
industry analysts, and some consumers, applaud this, calling imitation the
life-blood of the fashion world. Designers call it bad copyright law, and
say even if it's legal, copying someone else's designs is at least
unethical. A new federal bill, sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) of
Virginia in 2006 and backed by the Council of Fashion Designers of America,
would allow individuals to copyright a design for three years. CFDA
executive director Steven Kolb expects the bill to be reintroduced this
month. But as battle lines are being drawn, many cultural observers say this
is more than a struggle over the future of a trillion-dollar global
industry. It's also a window into changing American ideas about ownership
and ethical behavior."
So again, a lot of this is really arbitrary and inconsistent. Alan Kay has
said the thing about software licenses -- that so much of copyright law and
related legal interpretation is arbitrary, in terms of saying what a
derivative work is or what is infringement or what is fair use.
By the way, I mentioned this before, but it is in the news again:
"IP Enforcement Treaty Still Being Kept Secret"
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/06/2148217
"Publicly available information about the treaty shows it could establish
far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of
anti-counterfeiting measures"
At what point can somebody say a manufactured artifact is "counterfeit"? If
so, then obviously there is some protection there, and to what extent does
the GPL or a similar license relate to that? But, perhaps that just applies
to putting a logo on it to mislead, essentially violating a trademark more
than a design?
--Paul Fernhout
stuart naylor
The information has really and helped and any further comments or resources would be much appreciated.
I am looking at a Creative Commons Licence and documenting a HDL whilst providing a prototype.
I am going with the idea that the project is going to be fair when apportioning input and as a collaboration protection is given for all party's.
As I say please provide any further input as I will be knocking up a site and the politics and legal matters can be changed later.
Many Thanks
Stuart
StuartI...@HotMail.Com
Nick Taylor
This possibly isn't useful - but it's what springs to mind etc...
I think we're in a transitional phase analogous to the period where
mammals were still being eaten by dinosaurs. This will pass - and in the
end we will dominate because we're quicker to adapt.
So... a fragile notion at best etc, but I think that looking to
"dinosaur paradigms" to protect mammals might be less effective than
simply doing what mammals do best - which is rapidly adapting.
For example, you're probably not going to get repraps sold in Walmart
because by the time they've organised their economics-of-scale machinery
to sell the things, a new, better generation will be available.