4 ms·

In case you're curious, the license on the downloadable drawings for the "Starter Edition" is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 I mention this bec

In case you're curious, the license on the downloadable drawings for the "Starter Edition" is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 I mention this because it seems counter to what calling something "open source" means to most people. On the main page of the project, they say "It is strictly reserved for non-commercial applications" which... IANAL but I think the license limits commercial use of the design, but not of the device created with the design? Also NoDerivatives runs pretty counter the open source ethos IMO.

abetusk 6y ago
Thanks for the comment. This project is not open. A non commercial license is in direct conflict with what is the commonly accepted definition of "open" (source or hardware) [1]. Normally when hardware projects claim to be "open source", I give them a pass as they sometimes have the code or other firmware under a GPL-compatible license even when they have the hardware files under a proprietary or non-commercial license. This content is not providing any source or other files under an open/free/libre license. This project is "open washing" and should not be considered an "open source" project. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license > " ... Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses. ... "
willis936 6y ago
Afaik academic research isn’t considered commercial. I work in a lab that has a RAMAN spectrometer.
- Hello71 6y ago
  the problem with noncommercial licenses is that there is no commonly accepted definition of commercial. a simple definition of "you receive money for your work" excludes the vast majority of potential users. you get grant money? that's commercial. you post videos on YouTube? that's commercial. and even if it isn't, you may spend a significant amount of money defending a lawsuit. for this reason, any competent lawyer will tell you to stay far away from NC licensed material.

abetusk 6y ago

Thanks for the comment. This project is not open. A non commercial license is in direct conflict with what is the commonly accepted definition of "open" (source or hardware) [1]. Normally when hardware projects claim to be "open source", I give them a pass as they sometimes have the code or other firmware under a GPL-compatible license even when they have the hardware files under a proprietary or non-commercial license. This content is not providing any source or other files under an open/free/libre license. This project is "open washing" and should not be considered an "open source" project. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license > " ... Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses. ... "

willis936 6y ago

Afaik academic research isn’t considered commercial. I work in a lab that has a RAMAN spectrometer.

Hello71 6y ago
the problem with noncommercial licenses is that there is no commonly accepted definition of commercial. a simple definition of "you receive money for your work" excludes the vast majority of potential users. you get grant money? that's commercial. you post videos on YouTube? that's commercial. and even if it isn't, you may spend a significant amount of money defending a lawsuit. for this reason, any competent lawyer will tell you to stay far away from NC licensed material.