Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] TAPR Open Hardware License -- Public Comment Period

[John Ackermann N8UR]

Thanks for pointing that out!  It looks like they were going in parallel 
with our process; we first publicly mentioned the OHL at the Digital 
Communications Conference in September.

After taking a quick read, though, it seems to be quite different from 
what we are trying to accomplish.  In particular, it seems to be quite 
closed in that you can't distribute to others outside the "group" unless 
the developers contribute their work to the public domain.  But in 
general, it seems much more like a CYA document than a real open source 
agreement.

I'll dig further into it, though.

John
----

Philip Balister wrote:
> I haven't done much reading on Open Hardware licenses, but I am aware
> of one other effort to develop an open hardware license.
>
> http://balloonboard.org/balloonwiki/OpenHardwareLicense
>
> Philip
>
> On 2/12/07, John Ackermann N8UR <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hi all --
> >
> > For the last several months, I've been working, as a TAPR project, to
> > develop an open-source-like license for hardware projects.  We've
> > recently posted a 0.9 version for public comment, and welcome your input.
> >
> > The license is aimed at "real" hardware (the stuff you solder on) rather
> > than firmware, VHDL, or other software-like elements.  There are
> > significant differences in the legal approach you need to take with
> > hardware, and this agreement is aimed at those differences.  As far as
> > we know, this is the first attempt to create an open source framework
> > around hardware.
> >
> > You can download the TAPR Open Hardware License from
> > http://www.tapr.org/OHL.
> >
> > While I'm happy for comments however I receive them, there is a
> > discussion forum at http://technocrat.net/OHL and I'd prefer to get
> > input there so the discussion can be open.  The public comment period
> > ends on March 7.
> >
> > (In addition to the OHL, we've created a companion license, the TAPR
> > Noncommercial Hardware License, that is identical except that it limits
> > products to non-commercial use.  While that's not completely consistent
> > with Open Source models, the fact that it costs real money to offer
> > boards, kits, or complete products led us to think this would be
> > valuable in some situations.)
> >
> > I really look forward to comments from all quarters.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio