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")?
[OT] Why Open Source licensing
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:
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:
I hope this (offtopic) post may have helped you dispel the doubts, but feel free to ask me for further clarification.
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:
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:
What is open source said:
I hope this (offtopic) post may have helped you dispel the doubts, but feel free to ask me for further clarification.
Last edited:
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.
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:
Public Domain Mark 1.0 said:
Creative Commons — Public Domain Mark 1.0
Last edited:
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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:
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:
Hope that inspires.
Does your open hardware project need a license? said:
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:
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 said:
Hope that inspires.
Last edited:
Why not?
I am still confused about the need for a license, though. What is the benefit of using a license? What would a license do for us that we can't get without a license? A simple example to illustrate this would be good.
Not at all. Copyright offers you the legal protection automatically without doing anything (so long as the work is original). What you might have without agreements and a license created to achieve what you want is more difficulties trying to take legal action to enforce copyright against offenders.
Given the way the project is proceeding it doesn't appear to be a particularly productive use of time unless someone in the group wants to do it for interests sake. Open source in the title is rather misleading because the design doesn't exist as a document/collection of files in the way suggested by the term (and the way some of us would want in order to take much interest). Group project would be a clearer term.
I don't know, anyone that want's to help is welcome to, it's just that very few people seem interested in a teamwork effort, which is sort of the core of opensourse.
It's not like anyone where appointed part of the team, you have to volunteer, choose to involve yourself.
If you have some clear idea of what is not done optimally, and how to do it better, then I am certain some constructive feedback would be appreciated.
As long as the information is freely available, which it is, I don't really see the problem you are trying to portray.
It's not like anyone where appointed part of the team, you have to volunteer, choose to involve yourself.
If you have some clear idea of what is not done optimally, and how to do it better, then I am certain some constructive feedback would be appreciated.
As long as the information is freely available, which it is, I don't really see the problem you are trying to portray.
Not sure I understand. I was pointing out that you don't have a problem with copyright where you thought you had one.
The term open source refers to a source which is openly available. You don't have a source in a tangible form like documents or a set of files. Do you intend to produce some at some point? In a normal open source project the files are worked on together throughout the life of the project and to a fair extent define the project.
In the same way the type of speaker chosen to be designed will attract some people and repel others so does the chosen way to run the project. It is obviously impossible to satisfy everybody or probably even the majority. In my case I am certainly interested in a group design project but I am not interested in either of the current speaker designs and have reservations about the way the projects are going about things. I voiced some of this earlier in this thread and it's predecessor. The groups formed around unattractive designs to me and alternative ways of going about things which is absolutely fine. If the groups had formed around a design that was attractive to me and run in a way I liked it is almost certain that some of the people currently involved in the two projects would not have joined. Perhaps I will have a go when the two current projects have run their course.
I do not agree, not at all! The open source speaker threads are pretty long by now, and they contain many drawings, descriptions, circuits, etc. Although the designs are not yet finalized, these documents are certainly part of the designs.
But the question remains: do we really need a license? What benefits do we get from a license? I just don't understand the lawyer terminology, so a simple example using everyday language for dummies would be useful.
It is a source of sorts but difficult to read, edit or use in any reasonable manner. By publishing on this platform you have agreed to give away some rights to whatever company owns this platform. Are you happy with the details which vary from forum to forum (I will leave it to you to look them up)? When this forum comes to an end that material will disappear and you likely won't have any rights to it particularly if the forum is sold to a third party. If the material has significant value to anyone in the group I would suggest this is not a good way to go about things.
A bit like the license business considerations like this only matter if there is something original and exploitable in the outcome and members of the group want to control that exploitation. To change this aspect of the project for the better will take time and effort plus getting people to do things differently and likely in a way that is a bit more awkward and perhaps in a way they would rather not. It is a judgement call but to me observing from outside and with no stake in either project it doesn't look worthwhile having already spent considerable time and effort doing things in the current manner. Next time perhaps.
Gents
Unless you are trying to make money from this project, I don't understand why you are bothered about copyrights or defining what open source means.
Just have your fun as you set out to do. Many here will learn from the design process. We are grateful.
If a business subsequently copies your design then you will be no worse off.
Unless you are trying to make money from this project, I don't understand why you are bothered about copyrights or defining what open source means.
Just have your fun as you set out to do. Many here will learn from the design process. We are grateful.
If a business subsequently copies your design then you will be no worse off.
That would be good if it happens.
What info?
If you are referring to a possible future conventional open source project then source control software like mercurial or git handle the updates when people commit a chunk of work they consider suitable to be added and shared. Occasionally two people change the same bit of text and that needs sorting out between them but it is rarely a problem when people are pulling in roughly the same direction.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.