Open Hardware Licenses

[jtoole]

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on "Open Hardware Licenses" (of various types) and how they can help or hurt the DIY community and this forum in general.

A friend of mine had found this license, called the TAPR Open Hardware License, and he has used it for several community and DIY projects (For the Sumthing project and other non-audio stuff).  More info can be found here: http://www.tapr.org/OHL.  Certainly others are available, some with more restrictions that may better suite particular designer's wishes.  He is researching a newer option presently - this one is a bit dated and hasn't seen any updates, so may not have much community support.

To summarize the key features of this particular license, and how it might relate to DIY:

- Intended for hardware designs/products by focusing on the documentation required to build that product (schematics, board layouts, Gerber files, etc), and downstream manifestations of this documentation (PCBs, partially or fully assembled units or assemblies, etc).  

- The primary version is focused on open, unrestricted use and the ability to freely create derived works (think freeware).  An alternate version is also available that explicitly restricts commercial use, which may be more appropriate for some DIY projects where the designer wants to prevent others from commercializing the design without permission.

- Contains a so-called "viral" provision requiring derived works to be released under the same license (Similar to the GPL license in software).  This means that one can not take the design and create a derived product without disclosing the original design, and also providing _complete_ rights via this license to the derived work.  All changes must be documented and the original version must also be included with the new work (i.e. new and old schematics, etc).  This is key for DIY because it ensures that any contributed work will stay fully open and any derived work will be contributed back to the community, with annotations about what changes were introduced and by whom.

- It protects/indemnifies the Licensor against any claims arising from a licensee's use of the design.  This is key because it protects DIY designers from litigation related to faulty designs, mistakes on the builders part, etc.  

...

Obviously a gray area would be the application of these licenses to designs that could be considered derived from other commercial works (clones).  I'm not sure how this would work, but I suspect a potentially infringing design would not be protected by this license.  

I'm not a lawyer of course, so take my layman's analysis w/ a grain of salt. ;D I can't speak to the practical protection afforded by these licenses when enough money and lawyers are thrown at them (anything is vulnerable w/ enough lawyers/money), but I think there is value in spelling out the terms in most cases.  

At the least a license like this would make the expected terms of use very explicit and help the community regulate that others are complying as required.  As with the free/open SW movement, the community can help in regulation, and with enough critical mass, even help to pursue violators collectively where this might be prohibitive for individuals (think the "free software foundation" which litigates on behalf of smaller parties and groups in the free/open software community).

Thoughts ???

jt

 

[JohnRoberts]

If people build stuff for personal use there is no real commercial injury to the IP owner.

When people profit commercially from other people's IP there is damage and some claim on the profit.

The whole basis for IP protection is based on free dissemination of the IP content so people can learn from and build upon that knowledge.

======

I can hear it now.. less than 3% of the population gets patents so that IP wealth should be shared with the masses who can't invent.  :

JR

 

[jtoole]

If people build stuff for personal use there is no real commercial injury to the IP owner.

When people profit commercially from other people's IP there is damage and some claim on the profit.

The whole basis for IP protection is based on free dissemination of the IP content so people can learn from and build upon that knowledge.

I think you're right, but it doesn't address the protection of original work from the profiteering of others (unless patent protection was sought for each design, but this is too cumbersome and expensive for some cases).

Also, as someone in the SW industry for 10+ years I've seen that IP protection can also be a barrier to innovation.  Yes, the details are at the USPTO to examine (and this certainly has value), but patent trolls and rampant litigation make the "building upon" part a bit trickier...  The last start-up I was involved with fought a patent troll with a ridiculously vague patent for years before finally settling to resolve it (as part of an acquisition).

But this is all relevant to designs based on patented work or the IP of others - What about original IP? I'd be curious how you feel about work done explicitly to release into the community via such an open license? 

If the work is intended from the start to be DIY and NOT be commercialized, an open license can ensure this is true, and helps prevent other individuals from profiting from someone's hard work unless they do so within the community guidelines, while also guaranteeing complete access to the work and any derived works.

Of course personal work intended to be commercialized - resotune for example (cool stuff btw) - should be protected by traditional means, and are not appropriate for such licenses, but this is a different matter than trying to build a community of designs and projects for other enthusiasts to build upon.

I guess it depends if this is about the "Cloning Community" or the "DIY Community".  It seems to me that as DIY expands and flourishes (as it is, to the dismay of some here) the need to clone will diminish as people are able to introduce unique, usable and original designs for community use (some good examples here already right?).

jt

 

[JohnRoberts]

If the work is intended from the start to be DIY and NOT be commercialized, an open license can ensure this is true, and helps prevent other individuals from profiting from someone's hard work unless they do so within the community guidelines, while also guaranteeing complete access to the work and any derived works.

I guess it depends if this is about the "Cloning Community" or the "DIY Community".  It seems to me that as DIY expands and flourishes (as it is, to the dismay of some here) the need to clone will diminish as people are able to introduce unique, usable and original designs for community use (some good examples here already right?).

jt

I guess it comes down to work vs play...

I do serious design (work) with the expectation of being compensated.  I even had a kit company, where I shared the designs, with the expectation of profit from selling kits and parts.

I also try to help people here free who truly want to learn (play), but am disappointed by how many just want me to tell them the answer to their particular question (this is too much like unpaid consulting, i.e. work).

Human nature requires some kind of return for effort invested. I understand people getting satisfaction from building something themselves, but if they really enjoy it that much there are low paid factory jobs out there. Back when I ran my kit business, customers were actually getting some cost benefit from assembling kits, these days with such low labor content building stuff ourselves is even more esoteric (said by someone who once had a full heath kit test bench). 

I guess i don't get it... I have used some freeware-shareware for web site development but never find it just right so need to learn how to fix it myself to make it fully functional.

JR

PS: Don't get me started on the patent system.. the golden rule (he with the gold makes the rules) has long been in effect there. At the moment, I am participating in one patent suit against a company who is infringing on another company who owns my earlier IP work for hire..  I have little expectation this will be settled by a thoughtful critical analysis of the IP, but more by who shows up with the better mouth piece in court. I was disappointed by his unfamiliarity with discrete design when I coached the PHD "expert" witness my side hired. How can he or they be persuasive in court if they don't grok the heart of the invention? My suspicion is that may not matter, all that much (I hope for their sake).

 

[jtoole]

I guess it comes down to work vs play... I do serious design (work) with the expectation of being compensated.  I also try to help people here free who truly want to learn (play).

I don't think anyone would suggest you shouldn't be compensated for your work.  I don't _work_ for free either.   And I know you've been very helpful to others with questions...  Maybe the difference in perspective does relate to the fact that this is also your "real" work (audio related HW), while for many of this it is a labor of love fit within other commitments.  For me it's a combination of a desire for learning, a good compliment to my professional skills (I am principally an embedded SW eng.), and a passion for audio and recording stemming from my love of music. I don't really have the time or money for DIY, but damn is it addictive ;D

Human nature requires some kind of return for effort invested. I understand people getting satisfaction from building something themselves, but if they really enjoy it that much there are low paid factory jobs out there. Back when I ran my kit business, customers were actually getting some cost benefit from assembling kits, these days with such low labor content building stuff ourselves is even more esoteric (said by someone who once had a full heath kit test bench).

I think you are underestimating the overall value of the educational side - DIY is an amazing medium to learn engineering and science. The "do it for me" crowd gets on all our nerves, but I think it good to also remember that the "noob" might be 16 and just starting to develop a love for the field - I don't know about you, but I owe lots of what I do and know today to older engineers who were willing to share and teach when I was younger.

I guess i don't get it... I have used some freeware-shareware for web site development but never find it just right so need to learn how to fix it myself to make it fully functional.

Well, plenty of bad SW out there, free or paid (paid seems worse sometimes!).  SW is its own mess...  I wouldn't equate the concepts that much, only the implications of the licensing model is why I mentioned it.  If HW had the success ratio of SW this place would be in _deep_ trouble.  :-\  Also, keep in mind that OHLs (just like freeware) actually let you "fix it yourself" to make it fully functional or personalized - often not the case with the closed equivalents...

Let me give an example where I see value.  Let's say a number of forum members collaborate to design a new piece of kit.  This is a community effort and many have contributed. They could do it normal, make some boards, share the design, etc.  Next thing you know somebody unrelated is selling 10 finished units on ebay for big $$$ and everybody feels ripped off.  If this project was released w/ the non-commercial OHL, this would be against the terms of the license agreement.  Ebay listing can be removed.  The community has specific standing to confront the individual (see, this clause here "...").

Another case would be my friend who introduced me to this license.  He is an awesome EE, but he's not really an audio guy unless I pull him that direction...  He got involved with me to do the sumthing pcb and wanted to simply ensure that his work would be available to all and it wouldn't get usurped by some closed use.  He isn't concerned in the least bit about compensation.  He truly does it because its "what he does" (engineering)...  He felt good that putting it out with the open license means he's truly giving to the community.

I don't want to blasphem our elder gods here , but frankly sometimes it seems like some people want the 'cred' of saying look at this awesome design or project, then playing this game of deciding who is "worthy" of their work.  By no means everyone of course (I can't thank many of you enough for what you do for everyone here!), and I do think each person should be able to set their own boundaries in this regard, but I personally would like to see more people willing to say yes - I am giving to the community.  period.  unconditionally.  Maybe that's much easier to say when you have less to give, but at least I've tried to put my effort where my mouth is  ;D

In short (too late! I have "long-winded-disease"...), I think open licenses could be a way for people to ensure that their work is not exploited by others and remains available for the common good of the community indefinitely.  This works both ways.  Certainly its not right for everyone and their projects, but I think it could have a place...

 

[jtoole]

Digging a bit further in case there is any future interest...

It looks like the "Non-commercial" form of the license would be most appropriate for audio hardware DIY and some of the principles espoused here.

Here's a few excerpt's from the summary that I think resonate with issues on this forum and in the DIY community in general:

"Open Hardware is a thing - a physical artifact, either electrical or mechanical - whose design information is available to, and usable by, the public in a way that allows anyone to make, modify, distribute, and use that thing. In this preface, design information is called "documentation" and things created from it are called "products."

• You may modify the documentation and make products based upon it, provided you do not make more than ten units in any twelve month period.
• You may use products for any legal purpose without limitation.
• You may distribute unmodified documentation, but you must include the complete package as you received it.
• You may distribute products you make to third parties, if you:
  • Either include the documentation on which the product is based,
  • or make it available without charge for at least three years to anyone who requests it.
• Distribute only on a non-profit basis, charging no more than the actual cost of parts, assembly, and shipping.
• You may distribute modified documentation or products based on it, if you:
  • 
       
  • License your modifications under the NCL.
       
  • Include those modifications, following the requirements stated below.
       
  • Attempt to send the modified documentation by email to any of the developers who have provided their email address. This is a good faith obligation -- if the email fails, you need do nothing more and may go on with your distribution.

I think the limitations on units produced seems to make sense for some issues here.  Also the notion of distributing on a non-profit basis, (although of course "assembly" is a component of cost in a completed unit).

The Non-commercial version of the license can be found here: http://www.tapr.org/NCL
Wikipedia page with some references, also notes criticisms from OSI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAPR_Open_Hardware_License

Some of the criticisms involve the vague definition of "distribution" under the license.  It is also mentioned that some feel that GPL is better suited to protect design documentation and artifacts.