4 ms·

This is great but not open source in the OSI sense, the license seems to be restricted to non-commercial use. edit: The license is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-

by phreeza 13y ago

This is great but not open source in the OSI sense, the license seems to be restricted to non-commercial use. edit: The license is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported The idea is titillating though. I would love to have a toolchain to go with these plans that enable me to tinker with such plans. Would love to come up with a standing/sitting desk combo for example. Trying to find out what this kind of thing would cost to have done in Berlin now...

irickt 13y ago
The intent of the license is not clear. My interpretation is that the plans may be remixed and republished non-commercially, while the production of furniture is expected to be commercial. To limit or charge royalties on the production of furniture would require a more restrictive license.
- thruflo 13y ago
  Our license is here: https://www.opendesk.cc/license https://www.opendesk.cc/license -- it is CC Attribution-Non-Commercial (we dropped the Share Alike as an unnecessary restriction). Our intent is to allow anyone to download, adapt and make the designs for free whilst retaining the right to charge a markup on commercial manufacture / distribution. I.e.: we're not just about Open Source but also about a local making marketplace that (transparently) we make a cut from, in exchange for value offered in QA and ease of purchase. What we have definitely found is that it is not clear what exactly "Non-Commercial" means. On the one hand, we want to approve makers who commercially re-sell OpenDesks. On the other, we don't want to stop you taking a design to a local CNC shop yourself and asking them to cut it. We'd welcome both legal instruction on the validity of that position and any steer on appropriate license text. N.b.: if you're interested in a "purer" effort to create a public domain library of CNC-able designs, check out the next stages of the WikiHouse project: http://www.wikihouse.cc/community http://www.wikihouse.cc/community
  - phreeza 13y ago
    I think you could achieve this best by dropping the NC clause and enforcing the approval process by licensing the OpenDesk brandname? I think that is how Arduino works, for example. As it stands this is really not open source because you are trying to regulate how the actual information gets used, which in my opinion stifles innovation.
    - thruflo 13y ago
      That's an interesting suggestion and an interesting distinction -- thank you. I agree that any and all license restrictions stifle innovation / building on each other's work. I also think it would be nice to limit the application of "open source" so that in a perfect world, you don't get the kudos if you don't encourage the innovation. On the other hand, the literal meaning of open source is pretty clear: that the source code is available for you to view, tinker with and re-compile. Which with OpenDesk is, I hope, the case -- despite the NC license restriction. Aside: `license the brand` vs `license the design` reminds me a touch of the What colour are your bits article re-posted yesterday http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 A name is just a tag that can easily be snapped off...
      - caboteria 13y ago
        According to the Open Source Definition[0] "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Clause 6 requires that to be Open Source "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." [0] http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd
        thruflo 13y ago
        Fair enough -- thanks for the reference. On this point their rationale[1] is: > to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. Unambiguously opposed to a NC license being defined as open source. [1] http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

by phreeza 13y ago

irickt 13y ago

The intent of the license is not clear. My interpretation is that the plans may be remixed and republished non-commercially, while the production of furniture is expected to be commercial. To limit or charge royalties on the production of furniture would require a more restrictive license.

thruflo 13y ago
Our license is here: https://www.opendesk.cc/license https://www.opendesk.cc/license -- it is CC Attribution-Non-Commercial (we dropped the Share Alike as an unnecessary restriction). Our intent is to allow anyone to download, adapt and make the designs for free whilst retaining the right to charge a markup on commercial manufacture / distribution. I.e.: we're not just about Open Source but also about a local making marketplace that (transparently) we make a cut from, in exchange for value offered in QA and ease of purchase. What we have definitely found is that it is not clear what exactly "Non-Commercial" means. On the one hand, we want to approve makers who commercially re-sell OpenDesks. On the other, we don't want to stop you taking a design to a local CNC shop yourself and asking them to cut it. We'd welcome both legal instruction on the validity of that position and any steer on appropriate license text. N.b.: if you're interested in a "purer" effort to create a public domain library of CNC-able designs, check out the next stages of the WikiHouse project: http://www.wikihouse.cc/community http://www.wikihouse.cc/community
- phreeza 13y ago
  I think you could achieve this best by dropping the NC clause and enforcing the approval process by licensing the OpenDesk brandname? I think that is how Arduino works, for example. As it stands this is really not open source because you are trying to regulate how the actual information gets used, which in my opinion stifles innovation.
  - thruflo 13y ago
    That's an interesting suggestion and an interesting distinction -- thank you. I agree that any and all license restrictions stifle innovation / building on each other's work. I also think it would be nice to limit the application of "open source" so that in a perfect world, you don't get the kudos if you don't encourage the innovation. On the other hand, the literal meaning of open source is pretty clear: that the source code is available for you to view, tinker with and re-compile. Which with OpenDesk is, I hope, the case -- despite the NC license restriction. Aside: `license the brand` vs `license the design` reminds me a touch of the What colour are your bits article re-posted yesterday http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 A name is just a tag that can easily be snapped off...
    - caboteria 13y ago
      According to the Open Source Definition[0] "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Clause 6 requires that to be Open Source "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." [0] http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://opensource.org/docs/osd
      - thruflo 13y ago
        Fair enough -- thanks for the reference. On this point their rationale[1] is: > to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. Unambiguously opposed to a NC license being defined as open source. [1] http://opensource.org/osd-annotated http://opensource.org/osd-annotated