On Saturday 25 November 2006 02:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think we're approaching a convergence. How about a set of > definitions along the lines of: > > Open spec hardware: hardware whose interface specifications > (electrical, mechanical, logical) are published, sufficiently that it > can be designed into a system, and programmed if applicable > > Open design hardware: hardware whose internal design is published, > and licensed in a way that allows modification, republication, and > physical realization by others > > Libre design hardware: open design hardware whose license does not > permit further restriction when modified, republished, manufactured, > or distributed
Ouch. For software, there isn't much difference between "Open Source" and "Free" from a practical point of view. Now you're calling something "Libre" which in the world of software is called "copyleft". Note that X, which is under the MIT X licence, is free software, even though the licence is not a copyleft licence. Naming it like this would be confusing. Also, I'm not sure that this distinction is all that important; I would be for just leaving this is a property of the licence that does not affect openness. > Open design information, if dual-licensed, would be accompanied by > its original license if modified and redistributed under its open > license (GPL or whatever). But not necessarily. If it's a disjunctive dual-licence, then it should be possible to remove the proprietary licence from a derived work, just like you can for software. Lourens
pgpJ6FUXF4yA8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
