Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Open source speaker project - Part II
Open source speaker project - Part II
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
View Poll Results: Design Goal
Classic -Amp Friendly- Hi Sensitivity (92db+), Higher Bass Ext (f3 40-45Hz), Cabinet Size 60-80 18 17.82%
Classic -Bass Friendly- Deep Bass (f3 35-40Hz), Lower Sensitivity (88db+), Cabinet Size 80-110 10 9.90%
Classic XL -Amp and Bass Friendly- Hi Sensitivity (92db+), Deep Bass (f3 35-40Hz), Cabinet size 100+ 12 11.88%
Tower -Amp Friendly- Hi Sensitivity (92db+), Higher Bass Ext (f3 40-45Hz), Cabinet Size 60-80 13 12.87%
Tower -Bass Friendly- Deep Bass (f3 35-40Hz), Lower Sensitivity (88db+) , Cabinet Size 80-110 21 20.79%
Tower XL -Amp and Bass Friendly- Hi Sensitivity (92db+), Deep Bass (f3 35-40Hz), Cabinet size 100+ 27 26.73%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st January 2019, 07:56 PM   #161
mbrennwa is offline mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by forart.eu View Post
@Aatto : Hi there, I'm asking to self-claimed "Open Source" projects' authors to clarify the license choosed for the release.

Please read my last post about @ Open Source Monkey Box to understand better of what I'm talking about.

Thanks.
I am still not clear about the requirement for a license. I see that there are websites saying that "open source" projects must include a license. But what would such license do for us? Why is it important (apart from seemingly semantic arguments pertaining to the term "open source")?
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 09:00 AM   #162
forart.eu is offline forart.eu  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Marche
Default [OT] Why Open Source licensing

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
I am still not clear about the requirement for a license. I see that there are websites saying that "open source" projects must include a license. But what would such license do for us? Why is it important (apart from seemingly semantic arguments pertaining to the term "open source")?
I know that copyright concepts (and, consequently, the so-called "copyleft") are obscure for "ordinary people", but are essential to protect and spread - that aren't contrasting terms - the most precious thing we have in this information era: knowledge.

Open source is essentially a copyright "hack", which allows author(s) to allow the free diffusion of their works under specific conditions.
This scheme (realized for Creative Commons, but valid for any other open source/content license) is clearer than any words:
Click the image to open in full size.

Open source LEGALLY grants the control over intellectual work(s), allowing author(s) to pre-authorize or pre-deny uses and methods of spreading in an easy way: licenses are indeed already arranged by lawyers, so author(s) have just to choose which one is best suited for the project goal(s).

If you wanna invest half an hour of your spare time productively, I suggest read - free of charge, of course - the 1st chapter of Creative Commons: a user guide book by the italian copyright/left expert (a lawyer) Simone Aliprandi: it's very clear, simple and useful explaination of why and how CC was created.
(If you understand italian language, I also suggest the reading of its book "Copyleft & opencontent. L’altra faccia del copyright" that is freely downloadable here).

Then, last but not least, I wanna quote a few significant sentences from BigCommerce's article about open source:
Quote:
Originally Posted by What is open source, and why is it important?
Open source is a type of licensing agreement that allows users to freely modify a work, use said work in new ways, integrate the work into a larger project or derive a new work based on the original. By removing barriers between innovators, open source promotes a free exchange of ideas within a community to drive creative, scientific and technological advancement.

[...]

Many people believe that creating an open source product means giving that product away for free. While many open source applications are free, developers are entitled to sell their work to the public. However, the license dictates that they are not allowed to copyright or patent the derivative work, or keep any part of its code secret. Therefore, others may create derivative works that perform the same function better, for nothing.

The open source license naturally propagates to all applications that derive from the original. By agreeing to the license, users are also bound to it. Once a piece of software is made open source, all versions of the software will be open source in perpetuity.

[...]

Open source licensing encourages innovation through collaboration.
I hope this (offtopic) post may have helped you dispel the doubts, but feel free to ask me for further clarification.

Last edited by forart.eu; 22nd January 2019 at 09:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 10:03 AM   #163
andy19191 is offline andy19191  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: -
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrennwa View Post
I am still not clear about the requirement for a license. I see that there are websites saying that "open source" projects must include a license. But what would such license do for us? Why is it important (apart from seemingly semantic arguments pertaining to the term "open source")?
This is a topic I also brought up earlier but that was when I thought the group project would be more like an industrial design project. In this case the original work the copyright would apply to would be clear, the entity or people that owned the copyright would be clear from their contributions and how the group wanted to defend or exploit the original work would be clear. A license plus an agreement for those contributing makes this all nice and legal.

If you don't have a license then copyright resides with the authors or their employers if the activity overlaps what they are employed to do which catches out quite a few people. Copyright protects designs that are original and so a popular tweeter, popular midwoofer, MDF cabinet conventionally sized from midwoofer parameters with a standard crossover may not be protected if you went to court. If you want to go to court to prevent exploitation of the original work by others or to allow others to use the original work then all the copyright holders must agree and act as one. If even one of the copyright holders doesn't respond then you are beaten and can neither legally defend nor exploit the original work.

So a license is all about what the group may want to do with the original work in the future. Given the way the group is going about things identifying sufficiently original work and it's full copyright ownership does not appear sufficiently well defined for any legal activity to likely be successful making a license largely unimportant.

PS I am not a lawyer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 10:31 AM   #164
forart.eu is offline forart.eu  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Marche
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy19191 View Post
Given the way the group is going about things identifying sufficiently original work and it's full copyright ownership does not appear sufficiently well defined for any legal activity to likely be successful making a license largely unimportant.
This means that you have to choose the "No copyright" way aka Public Domain.

But keep in mind that PD don't allows author(s) to "control" their work in ANY way:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Public Domain Mark 1.0
This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.


You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Creative Commons — Public Domain Mark 1.0

Last edited by forart.eu; 22nd January 2019 at 10:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 10:58 AM   #165
andy19191 is offline andy19191  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: -
Quote:
Originally Posted by forart.eu View Post
This means that you have to choose the "No copyright" way aka Public Domain.
That would require an explicit license to this effect and the agreement from all those contributing to any original work. Given earlier comments about not wanting the work commercially exploited for free why would they want to do this? If they do nothing this is legally prevented although the group would have practical difficulties trying to enforce it against those illegally exploiting any original work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 06:54 PM   #166
mbrennwa is offline mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Ok, two questions:
  • I guess you get the idea of the "format" about what we do (not) want to happen with our "open source speaker" projects. Can you give a simple example to illustrate the type of things that could happen if we don't have a license, but could be prevented with a licence?
  • Our "open source speaker" projects are going on for a while now. Is it not too late to install a license now? Will a license cover the things that were done beore the license was installed? How?
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 07:08 PM   #167
Aatto is offline Aatto  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Aatto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Austin
Open source speaker project - Part II
and who's going to be the author ?
__________________
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was, and now what Im with isnt it. And whats it seems weird and scary to me. - Grandpa Simpsons.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 07:12 PM   #168
mbrennwa is offline mbrennwa  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
mbrennwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatto View Post
and who's going to be the author ?
I don't think that anyone would need to write a new license for us. We'd just use one of the many existing licenses. If this license would require us to state a specific person as the "author" or the "owner" of the project, this would be the wrong license
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2019, 07:39 PM   #169
andy19191 is offline andy19191  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: -
If you want one person to hold the copyright for everything then all the other contributors must explicitly surrender their rights to their own work in an agreement. If you are expecting to go to court to deal with copyright infringement then it can be a wise thing to do.

The default that people or their employers own the rights to their own original work is fairer but more cumbersome and potentially unworkable if you want to defend, exploit or change the licensing of the original work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2019, 12:12 PM   #170
forart.eu is offline forart.eu  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Marche
In these days I'm analyzing Open Hardware licenses for an italian engineer (that made HXOS - High Fidelity Audio Equipment hardware projects released under CC) and I found this interesting article about OH licensing @ opensource.com:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Does your open hardware project need a license?
The first step is to determine if you have anything to license.

[..]

It is important to point out the definition of Open Source Hardware, which starts out with acknowledging that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Definition 1.0
Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design.
If you determine that you have something to license beyond applying the definition of Open Source Hardware, you'll want to review the different licenses currently available and understand how they can be applied to your project.

TAPR vs. CERN
TAPR says its license provides, "a legal framework for open hardware projects." It may be used for any kind of product, be it a hammer or a computer motherboard, and by anyone.

[...]

CERN defines its license model as a "legal framework that will allow for the formal recognition and endorsement of open source hardware, while protecting intellectual property."
So I believe that Open Hardware licenses can't be applied to your project.

Adopting the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license remains the best suggestion, to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.


Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.


Notices:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
Hope that inspires.

Last edited by forart.eu; 23rd January 2019 at 12:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Open source speaker project - Part IIHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Open source speaker project? Aatto Multi-Way 553 7th September 2018 05:13 PM
Open source Active Wifi speaker project MrVins59 Multi-Way 19 23rd March 2018 04:25 PM
Volume / Source selector - open source project ? AuroraB Analog Line Level 22 22nd September 2012 03:21 PM
CDPRO2 Group Project (open source project) BrianGT Digital Source 147 8th August 2008 12:37 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 13.64%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2019 diyAudio
Wiki