Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Equivalent of GPLv3 for hardware???

[Dave Rolek]

On 03/30/2016 07:51 PM, IngeGNUe wrote:
> On 03/30/16 18:38, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
> > On 30/03/16 13:45, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:23:26 +0100, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
> > > > I really like the idea of copyleft and licenses such as the GPLv3.
> > > > What is
> > > > the closest equivalent of GPLv3 for hardware?
> > > This is rms' position:
> > >
> > > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html
> > Thanks Mike for the link, I just took another look at his essay again.
> > as I understand it, he thinks the situation for hardware is different
> > but generally recommends the GPLv3 for hardware *designs*. RMS also
> > correctly points out the problem of patents in hardware, which I alluded
> > to (but didn't make clear) in the original question. My understanding of
> > this problem is that even if you release your hardware under a copyleft
> > license, the license or only apply to one embodiment of your hardware
> > because it is one single expression of a work?
> >
> > However, since patents require prior art, if you create something and
> > released its design and the physical portions under a copyleft license,
> > you are essentially putting all of that into the "prior art" realm,
> > which would prevent others from patenting it? Would this work to attain
> > the equivalent of copyleft for hardware?
> >
> > IngeGNUe also mentioned releasing the hardware under CC BY-SA, which is
> > essentially a form of copyleft (please correct me if I am wrong). How
> > does that compare to releasing the hardware under GPLv3? Or is there
> > another license that addresses this issue, which leads to my original
> > question of if there's an hardware compatible license that is in the
> > *spirit* of copyleft? I say spirit because copyright (and hence copyleft
> > per set) might not be the biggest issue for hardware.
> >
> > This might become a real issue for me in the coming months since I'm
> > trying to sign up for a maker/hacker related meeting to discuss and
> > brainstorm hardware projects...
> >
> > Thanks!!
> If you'll forgive the "open source" phrasing -- you'll have to live with
> it on many of these hardware endeavors :) -- there are a bunch of people
> in your shoes too:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#Licenses
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Hardware_Licenses
> http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2010/01/grand-unifying-theory-of-open-source.html
>
> There do exist "open" hardware licenses and maybe some of them are
> copyleft...
>
> This is really worrying:
>
> "But actually, the situation is very different for hardware design,
> since copyleft relies on copyright, and hardware is (in most cases) not
> protected by copyright law." -
> http://keimform.de/2009/the-tricky-business-of-copylefting-hardware/
>
> This is useful history, the problems have been going on for years:
> http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/01/10/open-hardware-licenses-history/
>
> http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/licdiff <--- I have NEVER heard of
> these people until now, no idea if they have a good reputation... IF
> they are good, then maybe they will know someone on the other side of
> the Atlantic.
-----

I haven't read all of the thread nor all of rms's stance on free 
hardware, but I am surprised no one mentioned the concept of patentleft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentleft

I know very little about it (so don't ask me for help!), and I expect 
that patenting something will cost a lot, but it is a consideration if 
you want to tackle a specific part of the nonfree hardware battle.

And hmm... per Wikipedia references for the article, it looks like rms 
*has* commented indirectly on patentleft in the past (1999):
http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999062200505NWLF

Hope that helps!
Dave