Hello DiyAudio community,
I’d like to propose an addition to the forum rules to help protect designers of printed circuit boards (PCBs) from having their work copied or repurposed without permission. I’ve been reflecting on a few situations I’ve seen in the community, and I think this could benefit us all by fostering respect for original design efforts while still encouraging collaboration and innovation.
For context: many of us spend significant time—sometimes 100+ hours—designing a PCB to share with the community. Typically, we organize group buys so members can purchase boards directly from the original designer/s. This process works great until someone takes that design, creates a near-identical variant, and presents it as their own work—often without credit or permission. Not only does this undermine the original designer’s or teams efforts, but it can also confuse the community about the origins of the design and dilute the value of the collaborative spirit we’re known for.
My suggestion is to add a rule along these lines:
“If a member creates a variant of an existing PCB design shared on the forum, they must (1) reference the original designer(s) and (2) obtain explicit permission from the original designer(s) before selling it or starting a thread about it on DiyAudio. This applies to designs that are substantially based on or derived from the original work.”
This wouldn’t stifle creativity—folks could still build on others’ ideas—but it would ensure transparency and respect for the time and skill invested by the original designer. I think it could also encourage more people to share their work, knowing their efforts are safeguarded.
I’d love to hear your thoughts! Have others run into this issue? Do you think this rule makes sense, or is there a better way to handle it? I’m open to refining the idea based on feedback.
Thanks for reading, Stuartmp
I’d like to propose an addition to the forum rules to help protect designers of printed circuit boards (PCBs) from having their work copied or repurposed without permission. I’ve been reflecting on a few situations I’ve seen in the community, and I think this could benefit us all by fostering respect for original design efforts while still encouraging collaboration and innovation.
For context: many of us spend significant time—sometimes 100+ hours—designing a PCB to share with the community. Typically, we organize group buys so members can purchase boards directly from the original designer/s. This process works great until someone takes that design, creates a near-identical variant, and presents it as their own work—often without credit or permission. Not only does this undermine the original designer’s or teams efforts, but it can also confuse the community about the origins of the design and dilute the value of the collaborative spirit we’re known for.
My suggestion is to add a rule along these lines:
“If a member creates a variant of an existing PCB design shared on the forum, they must (1) reference the original designer(s) and (2) obtain explicit permission from the original designer(s) before selling it or starting a thread about it on DiyAudio. This applies to designs that are substantially based on or derived from the original work.”
This wouldn’t stifle creativity—folks could still build on others’ ideas—but it would ensure transparency and respect for the time and skill invested by the original designer. I think it could also encourage more people to share their work, knowing their efforts are safeguarded.
I’d love to hear your thoughts! Have others run into this issue? Do you think this rule makes sense, or is there a better way to handle it? I’m open to refining the idea based on feedback.
Thanks for reading, Stuartmp
Last edited:
The free software world has solved the licensing problem (dozens of times).
People who want to license their work can apply a free software license. For schematics or PCB layout, the Creative Commons license seems appropriate. The licenses are available for anyone to use.
Ed
People who want to license their work can apply a free software license. For schematics or PCB layout, the Creative Commons license seems appropriate. The licenses are available for anyone to use.
Ed
Unless you add money to the mix, nobody will entertain your assertion.
So either you sell or license your design, or do not share it, sell ready PCBs etc. which you will most probably get done outside.
Nothing prevents the PCB supplier to play with your design and sell a 'better' version.
Another issue is simply package changes, you have changed layouts from through hole to SMD, to multi layer SMD.
And next level, if it is done using different devices, then what?
Intel ended up paying VIA royalties for the Pentium III because they
used a design from the NS Cyrix CPUs, which had been taken over by VIA.
So, you want to pay lawyers to enforce your rights on something you effectively donated, or gave away for free?
So either you sell or license your design, or do not share it, sell ready PCBs etc. which you will most probably get done outside.
Nothing prevents the PCB supplier to play with your design and sell a 'better' version.
Another issue is simply package changes, you have changed layouts from through hole to SMD, to multi layer SMD.
And next level, if it is done using different devices, then what?
Intel ended up paying VIA royalties for the Pentium III because they
used a design from the NS Cyrix CPUs, which had been taken over by VIA.
So, you want to pay lawyers to enforce your rights on something you effectively donated, or gave away for free?
Hi Stuart,
Yep, this is, has and always will be an issue. I agree with you, but, once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no way to get'em back in.
I just don't see how your proposed idea can be enforced? Who's judgement would rule on a "variant of an existing PCB design", how much does it have to vary to not be considered a copy. Most amplifier designs are a copy from somewhere.
I'd say a large majority of members on this forum who create a pcb that mimic a design that was shared here are very polite about it and do give credit to the original designer/s. The key here is selling the copied design, which should be a definite no-no.
I'm curious to see where this goes, I hope no politics or bashing gets involved that shuts this thread down.
Yep, this is, has and always will be an issue. I agree with you, but, once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no way to get'em back in.
I just don't see how your proposed idea can be enforced? Who's judgement would rule on a "variant of an existing PCB design", how much does it have to vary to not be considered a copy. Most amplifier designs are a copy from somewhere.
I'd say a large majority of members on this forum who create a pcb that mimic a design that was shared here are very polite about it and do give credit to the original designer/s. The key here is selling the copied design, which should be a definite no-no.
I'm curious to see where this goes, I hope no politics or bashing gets involved that shuts this thread down.
I wonder how you intend to enforce this rule. There are quite a few gray zones. I'll give a few examples:
I use a certain component placement for the bulk capacitance and decoupling capacitance on my LM3886-based boards. I see many now use that placement too. Is that fair use or copyright infringement? It's the placement that makes the most sense when you think about it, so it's entirely possible that someone used it before me. Just as it is possible that others arrived at that placement on their own. So who should cite who?
I've had a couple of paragraphs from my website copy-n-pasted by a forum member who's offering a competing circuit without any attribution. In that case I posted, "Yep! That is indeed cribbed from my website. Here's a link for those interested in reading it in context". Seemed to get the job done.
I've also been at the other end of the issue. Years ago someone accused me of copying their circuit a year or so after I posted about my circuit here. It was a pretty standard triode+pentode power amp design with Schade feedback, and I'd never heard of the circuit I supposedly copied. The guy was very adamant that I should credit him even though I'd never heard of his circuit until then. When I refused and explained that I'd never heard of his circuit, but that I had been inspired by two other similar circuits, he called me all sorts of names. He eventually went away unsatisfied. Should I have cited his circuit? Should I have run a more thorough search before posting my circuit? Posting on diyAudio should not be like filing a patent application.
I did once have someone buy one of my boards and then copy it professionally. He posted Gerber files on a Croatian forum. It was a layer-by-layer copy. That's a clear-cut copyright violation in my book and I had no issue getting the files taken down once I contacted the forum owner. Strangely the copycat never bothered to download the documentation for the board so they didn't post the BOM.
I do agree that if someone takes your design, makes a couple of tweaks, and posts it as their own, they should at least get your permission and cite your circuit properly in their first post. And by "properly" I mean that they should prominently mention your name, company name (if applicable), and circuit name in their first post about their derivative circuit. If your circuit is already on diyAudio, they should also post a link to the thread for your circuit. I think that's just a professional courtesy.
Resale of content posted here is already against the forum rules. See the Intellectual Property section of the rules.
The Creative Commons license has the same issues. You can slap whatever licensing terms on your circuits. Enforcing your rights as a licensor remains a challenge.
Unfortunately, I think the best protection against unauthorized use of your content or circuits is to not post anything here that you don't want copied.
Tom
I use a certain component placement for the bulk capacitance and decoupling capacitance on my LM3886-based boards. I see many now use that placement too. Is that fair use or copyright infringement? It's the placement that makes the most sense when you think about it, so it's entirely possible that someone used it before me. Just as it is possible that others arrived at that placement on their own. So who should cite who?
I've had a couple of paragraphs from my website copy-n-pasted by a forum member who's offering a competing circuit without any attribution. In that case I posted, "Yep! That is indeed cribbed from my website. Here's a link for those interested in reading it in context". Seemed to get the job done.
I've also been at the other end of the issue. Years ago someone accused me of copying their circuit a year or so after I posted about my circuit here. It was a pretty standard triode+pentode power amp design with Schade feedback, and I'd never heard of the circuit I supposedly copied. The guy was very adamant that I should credit him even though I'd never heard of his circuit until then. When I refused and explained that I'd never heard of his circuit, but that I had been inspired by two other similar circuits, he called me all sorts of names. He eventually went away unsatisfied. Should I have cited his circuit? Should I have run a more thorough search before posting my circuit? Posting on diyAudio should not be like filing a patent application.
I did once have someone buy one of my boards and then copy it professionally. He posted Gerber files on a Croatian forum. It was a layer-by-layer copy. That's a clear-cut copyright violation in my book and I had no issue getting the files taken down once I contacted the forum owner. Strangely the copycat never bothered to download the documentation for the board so they didn't post the BOM.
I do agree that if someone takes your design, makes a couple of tweaks, and posts it as their own, they should at least get your permission and cite your circuit properly in their first post. And by "properly" I mean that they should prominently mention your name, company name (if applicable), and circuit name in their first post about their derivative circuit. If your circuit is already on diyAudio, they should also post a link to the thread for your circuit. I think that's just a professional courtesy.
Resale of content posted here is already against the forum rules. See the Intellectual Property section of the rules.
The Creative Commons license has the same issues. You can slap whatever licensing terms on your circuits. Enforcing your rights as a licensor remains a challenge.
Unfortunately, I think the best protection against unauthorized use of your content or circuits is to not post anything here that you don't want copied.
Tom
For something to be copyrighted it has to be unique in some way.
Many amplifiers are based around differential amp front end, VAS, Vbe Multiplier into output transistors.
This would be impossible to copyright.
I sell a pcb which is a derivative of the Maplin lateral mosfet amplifier.
On the sale page I give credit to Maplin but also original designer Hitachi.
I added extra decoupling and a DC offset pot and options on pcb for TO247 or TO3 output transistors.
Many amplifiers are based around differential amp front end, VAS, Vbe Multiplier into output transistors.
This would be impossible to copyright.
I sell a pcb which is a derivative of the Maplin lateral mosfet amplifier.
On the sale page I give credit to Maplin but also original designer Hitachi.
I added extra decoupling and a DC offset pot and options on pcb for TO247 or TO3 output transistors.
As far as I understand it you automatically have the copyright to whatever you create unless you are creating it for others in exchange for money. Then the one who paid the bills owns the copyright.
If you did your own PCB layout you'd own the copyright to the PCB layout even if the circuit isn't your own.
Tom
I think also that you have to be very careful about copyrights... because if you own the copyright then you also own the liability.
The OSF license frees people from the liability because you give away the copyrights to the community. Sure, no one gets rich, it's done primarily for the joy of seeing your name out there and maybe it'll get you some work where someone pays your bills...
I've always figured that stuff on DIY Audio is pretty much done without copyrights but at the same time, it can not be copied.
Perhaps DIYAudio should own the copyright.... but then... who owns the liability?
"WARNING: By purchasing this board or copying it you agree it is AS IS with no guarantees. If it smokes and burns your house or maims your mother in law in the back room you agree that you can not sue us"...
The bottom line is that we all get stuck with lawyers.
The OSF license frees people from the liability because you give away the copyrights to the community. Sure, no one gets rich, it's done primarily for the joy of seeing your name out there and maybe it'll get you some work where someone pays your bills...
I've always figured that stuff on DIY Audio is pretty much done without copyrights but at the same time, it can not be copied.
Perhaps DIYAudio should own the copyright.... but then... who owns the liability?
"WARNING: By purchasing this board or copying it you agree it is AS IS with no guarantees. If it smokes and burns your house or maims your mother in law in the back room you agree that you can not sue us"...
The bottom line is that we all get stuck with lawyers.
Last edited:
If diyAudio automatically gained the rights to anything we post here it would mean that we'd have to license our own ideas and circuits from diyAudio to reproduce them. That wouldn't make much sense.
Tom
Tom
Encouraging good behavior is a great idea, but unfortunately, I think the proposed concept would be unenforceable for moderation staff, and a lucrative job for lawyers. As others have pointed out in this thread, the topic of derivative work is a very large can of worms.
We encourage all members to be good citizens, "take the high road" and do the right thing by intellectual property owners.
diyAudio abides by the laws of the country in which the forum is domiciled (Australia), and we take action when content is reported, on a case-by-case basis, to fulfill our legal obligations.
Closing this thread.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.