“In the case of Edgesense, there are no verbatim takeovers of content from edgeryders.eu posts and comments, and only these are covered by content licencing. Taking over facts does not infringe any licence (exception: in the case of database records, for countries having extended copyright to databases; but that’s not about pure metadata as here). So, no, I don’t think CC-BY-SA licencing of content would have any effects on Edgesense secondary data. It would have effect on Open Ethnographer’s secondary data.”
This makes more sense to me now. I was getting confused by the different licensing terms that were being applied to the different projects. I didn’t realise that the Edgesense project was under different terms to the Edgeryders.eu website content.
“But if a copyleft “share alike” clause is the only “restriction”, no issue at all. Personally I like both the permissive and copyleft style open licences :)”
Why would we not use the GPL? I can see why you would want to use some form of a Creative Commons license, but in your opinion, what are the reasons against using the GPL?
"On a “non-commercial” clause: it is kinda agreed in the software world that “free” licencing means not infringing against a use, so a “non-commercial” clause means that the licence is no longer open. "
I’ve only found this to be the case in the corporate sponsored FOSS software, as opposed to the FLOSS software. The older projects that started before Open-Source became another marketing buzzword used one of the GPL variants, because that was what was available then. When companies wanted to contribute to those projects, they had no choice but use the GPL for thier contributions.
There were a number of commercial software companies, where they had usage restrictions as part of the licensing. It was a way of reducing and removing liability. You still can’t use any MicroSoft software to control any form of nuclear system… :))
There were other Open-Source Software licenses, that were in use before the GPL was developed, which had similar restrictions when it came to safety-critical systems. While this was a way of removing liability from the developers, it also was a method of empowering the users with idea of being personally responsible for the software that they were running, as well as providing them with the capability of being able to do so, without being tied to a specific vendor.
The mainframe market has used this method since the 1960’s, and it’s still where the enterprise market makes a lot of their margins.
“Accepting unintended use is at the core of being “open”: both the price one pays for opening ones stuff, and the benefit one gets by being allowed to do everything whatsoever with others’ open stuff (if attributing and potentially sharing on, granted).”
When it comes to tool making, this is one of the tool-maker’s main protection from being sued and/or shutdown. You can use the same CNC system to make food-growing devices, or you can use it to make artillery.
To mis-quote @Hexayurt, because the price-point of automated manufacturing is sliding down the scale from full-scale industrial processes, to the personal scale, it changes the way we have to do things…
“And besides, I so far could not figure out what they mean: preventing from selling the licenced work, or preventing from using it internally in a company as well?”
This i have never been able to figure out.
This sort of restrictions almost always went hand-in-hand with the programmers email address, so if you wanted to discuss dual licencing for a specific use, you could find them, and negotiate a direct contract. There are two hardware programmer’s i know who were doing this back in the early 90’s.
I couldn’t get a straight answer from them then either… :))
It’s a question that i need answered, in a legally-watertight manner, before i start releasing any of the tools i’ve designed.
I’m not against people making and USING the tool designs for themselves. I just want to make sure whenever they make and SELL a tool that’s made from an OSHW design, the person who is receiving the machine, also receives a copy of the design docs as well, so they are not tied to that specific vendor.
I also want to work out some clauses, so that if the machine is made and HIRED out, then the person hiring the machine gets granted the same access rights to the original design documentation, under an identical set of copyright restrictions. And this will help fix another trap that Stallman foresaw.
I remember some of the FUD that was being used by Microsoft around the back end of the 90’s, where they were saying that every document created with a GPL word-processor would automatically be given a GPL copyright license. It was basically another attempt at confusing middle-managers.
However, you can see where Stallman was coming from, when you realise that when the earliest compilers were running on mainframes, they had a usage licence where the copyrights of the compiled software was set by the company that made the compiler.
His hack was to make a second compiler that stuck to those restrictions, but didn’t have any restrictions on the output of the second compiler. The first thing he did with the second compiler he had made, was to compile the third version of the compiler, which was free of any restrictions whatsoever. And that’s what turned into the GCC.