4 ms·
The license needs work. It claims to be GPL3 but then includes terms which completely violate GPL3, and GPL is not really applicable to hardware in any event.
by Brian_K_White 2y ago
The license needs work. It claims to be GPL3 but then includes terms which completely violate GPL3, and GPL is not really applicable to hardware in any event.
It's really some form of CC-BY-SA-NC plus some more limits about "safety" which is impossible to define and prove or disprove and none of the creators business.
Basically it's almost untouchable until the terms are actually defined and made sensible.
Even the simple "only for hobby/personal/educational use" is internally inconsistent because education is itself a commercial activity.
Trying to say too much in the license is just wasting an exceptionally cool project. Just make it CC-BY-SA, add the warnings and disclaimers, and leave it at that. Only add the -NC if you want to sell them and be the only one allowed to sell them. If you aren't planning to sell them as an important part of your own livlihood, then don't add -NC, it doesn't make the world a better place.
- _hyn3 2y agoNot sure why you're getting down voted, but you're absolutely right. Cool project though.
- asveikau 2y agoI'm not a lawyer, but what about those ubiquitous statements about how things are "provided without warranty"? It's clear that this guy is concerned about being liable for what could go wrong. Also, I'm not sure if laws and expectations are different in Germany where he seems to be based. Edit: sorry, his domain is .NL, but I thought otherwise because it seems a lot of people he cites working with in the readme have a .de domain.
- snvzz 2y ago>no warranty Even the simplest, most straightforward licenses (like MIT) take care of that much. Nobody would ever want liability for a project they donate to the world as open source.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoThe disclaimers are fine.
- Palomides 2y agothis license stuff is endemic in vintage computing, very frustrating people (usually with a limited engineering background) have a fantasy that they might start a hobby business, and are afraid someone will "steal" their design and sell a dozen on ebay
- Gormo 2y agoWhere are you seeing any of those terms and caveats? The LICENSE file in the repo appears to be the unmodified GPLv3.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoThe readme. The fact that the licence file and the readme conflict is just yet another part of the same problem.
- Gormo 2y agoThe items in the readme all read as warnings and disclaimers, not as enforceable terms of the license agreement. It's basically saying everything you do with this is solely at your own risk, and if you use it in production, any liability is on you. The attribution request is a "should", not a "must", and not part of the license. Personally, I wouldn't interpret anything in the readme as binding conditions.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoThe readme stipulates several things which are allowed and not allowed. They are not disclaimers nor advice as worded when I read them. You can't ignore any stated terms and conditions you don't like. The terms an conditions apply no matter where they are written. The readme is no different than any other file, like for example comments in a random source file. I did not say anything about attribution. GPL3 already requires attribution and is not a problem. Similarly my suggested CC-BY-SA includes BY.
- Gormo 2y ago> The readme stipulates several things which are allowed and not allowed. I mean, not really -- it's mostly just a big disclaimer of liability, and the only time it uses the phrase "not permitted", it's also just amounts to another disclaimer of liability in that it's saying that it's "not permitted" to use the product without assuming full responsibility for the associated risks.
- hulitu 2y ago> education is itself a commercial activity. only in some countries.