From: John Ackermann N8UR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] TAPR Open HArdware License -- Public Comment Period Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:54:09 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yup, but the BSD license, much as I like it for many applications, > doesn't do the things we were trying to accomplish. I will openly admit > that we were trying to emulate the GPL framework rather than the BSD > approach. > > Anyway, I buy your point that short is good, but I think the current > document is about as short as it can be without losing the essential > points we were trying to make. Trying to tweak the BSD license just > wouldn't work (among other things, copyright is the least important > aspect of a hardware license; dealing with patents is a much bigger > deal, and the BSD license doesn't even contemplate that). Neither does the BSD license attempt to indicate that it deals with patents, which actually makes things easier since then it assumes the normal laws are in action. This still leaves questions about the content of the design which is covered. I really wonder if the OHL patent immunity clauses really fly. I would not trust them to. I will have to check the details, but I don't think that it can be written out. Working it the opposite, it should then make it clear that when sharing a design this way, it manifests itself as an open publication and thus any techniques disclosed is to be considered as public and thus can not be patented by a third party or the original contributor afterhand. I'm not sure if the patent part is really that easy to handle so it is worth including. I really need to think about that. I've read the IPR rules of ETSI and setup the company IPR policy towards ETSI, so I've had my toes wet to some degree. We stayed clear of IPR related issues even if we had hostile opponents initially, so I consider that a succsess. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list [email protected] https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
