Fwd: [OpenSCAD] License for scad files

[Bryan Bishop]

From: Johannes Reinhardt <jrein...@ist-dein-freund.de>
Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Subject: [OpenSCAD] License for scad files
To: "open...@rocklinux.org" <open...@rocklinux.org>


Hi everybody,

while working on BOLTS, I started to think about licensing and scad
code and realised that this is a quite complicated topic. I am not a
lawyer, so I struggled quite a bit with that. Licenses are of some
importance to BOLTS, because I want to make sure, that existing code
can be incorporated with little effort, and for that I have to make
sure that this is legally possible.

I reached a state where I think I understood and then tried to write it
up:

http://jreinhardt.github.io/BOLTS/doc/general/licensing.html

However, today I thought about it from another perspective and
struggled again, so I decided to ask for your expertise, maybe you can
point out if I misunderstood something.

The main problem for me is that scad code is somehow both code and
content. On the one hand one can see a scad file as something that is
a description of an object, just like a stl file. If you look at it
like that, then a CC license makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, scad code is very much code. You can have a scad
library that is not a description of an object. For that, I feel, a
license tailored towards code, like the GPL or LGPL is better suited.
MCAD for example is LGPL.

But CC and (L)GPL are incompatible, which means that one cannot use them
together. Unfortunately, a lot of the scad code that is around is CC
licensed, because the standard license on thingiverse is CC. I find
this very unsatisfactory that the available scad code is fragmented
into legally incompatible subsets.

Greetings

Johannes


--

_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
Open...@rocklinux.org
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566

--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[Meredith L. Patterson]

Naive question: what about (L)GPL/GFDL instead of (L)GPL/CC?

Cheers,

--mlp

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CABaSBawzubc3cQnbK%2BoXgPhoEq3oSOWcpBdndwP8BKENBAZ-2w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Cathal Garvey]

My early stuff is still CC-BY-SA-NC, which is irrevocable (with good
reason). I've since relicensed twice: once to switch to CC-BY-SA (I
attained anti-NC enlightenment) and once to switch to GPL, realising
that as far as it matters, OpenSCAD remains "source code" for a
compiled file in the same way that source code for a program is for a
compiled binary.

The process of "compilation" is what distinguishes
source code, and whether the product is a binary or a physible or a DNA
molecule appears to me irrelevant, though I don't know whether a court
would back me up.

So, people can pick whether they like CC-BY-SA or GPL, but I rather GPL.

In the end, it's irrelevant to my own needs; someone ripped off
Dremelfuge on Shapeways (that is, they derived without licensing
freely, let alone an optional nod or attributive note), and Shapeways
have taken the position that it's not their problem, and I lack the
money or motivation to threaten suit. So the license is nice, but
without enforcement it's no use.

Yes, if a big guy (TM) ripped me off, I'd contemplate suing them for
free licensing and legal fees, so it's not pointless. Just griping, I
guess; copyright and patents are not designed to protect or facilitate
small people, and good things built upon them inherit this basic
uselessness.

[Nathan McCorkle]

Cathal, I had lunch with Richard Stallman years ago and he seemed
interested in non-software related open-source licenses, though I
didn't get to talk much about DNA specifically. Maybe he would be
interested in your case or know someone who would be:
rms at gnu period org.

--
-Nathan

[Cathal Garvey]

I'm immediately jealous! :) Actually, I'm attending a talk by RMS
tomorrow at Dublin Web Summit, so perhaps I'll have a chance to badger
him about Free/Libre Ag/Bio again (FLAB).

I had been emailing him to and fro about a potential visit to Dublin
previously for Science Gallery's latest exhibit, "Grow Your Own" which
deals with biohacking and synthetic biology, but couldn't get funding
together for his transit.. perhaps now that he's here we can eke some
time from his buy schedule for a talk or panel event? We'll see if I
get a chance to talk to him tomorrow.

[Nathan McCorkle]

Awesome! We offered to drive him around like a taxi while he was in
town, and he took us up on it! If the science exhibit is still up,
maybe offer to take him there, etc, or something.

Interesting coincidence!

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Cathal Garvey

--
-Nathan