Re: usage of software [was: Re: Fwd: Re: [ox-en] Walther]
- From: Rich Walker <rw shadow.org.uk>
- Date: 02 Mar 2004 01:49:00 +0000
On 28 Feb 2004, graham seul.org wrote:
a. People doing free hardware designs. Until recently there were very
few hardware designs under the gpl or standard software licenses; but
there have been people making designs available on the internet since
before the web.
Note that there has always been a culture of publishing designs for use
by others in hobbyist and ham communities. Often, no license is stated
but there is a convention of reuse with citation and credit.
The majority of these had - and quite a few still have
- one-off licenses which say things like 'this design may not be used
for military purposes'. At one time I thought this was one of the
major reasons why free hardware design had not generated the same kind
of momentum as free software, and changing the licenses to
usage-neutral ones would help, but I'm not so sure of this any more.
There's two problems with this sort of license - they not only fail to
do the GPL "neat hack" of making the license-violator wave your license in
court ('cos which country is going to take their military to court?) but
also they may well be *illegal* in various countries. For example, in
the UK if you apply for a patent, the military have the right to take
your patent for their purposes, and you have no recourse.
I am sure that this kind of license immediately scares off anyone
apart from individuals; it's pretty much like saying 'we have a clause
that says we can sue you if you do something that in our opinion is
wrong'. Companies run a mile from this.. though maybe Martin wouldn't
see that as a bad thing?
Software companies (frequently) prefer BSD licenses, because they can
hide the code they are working from. Engineering companies prefer to buy
supported code, or use GPL code. This is a bit of a generalisation, but
not far off it.
b. People clustered round a small group of licenses of which IMO the
most significant is the license formerly known as the ggpl ('greater
good public license'), now the cgpl. See http://www.ggpl.org
This license includes the UN declaration on human rights as part
of its conditions.
That's an interesting point. I wonder if it can be made to work in the
same way that the GPL works.
Why is this (AFAIK) a small group of people? Why (AFAIK) haven't most
people heard of this license?
Good question. I thought I'd read most of the interesting licenses when
I was looking for one for hardware. (Settled on a variant OHGPL)
If Martin really believes that the way forward is to put political
restrictions on usage, I'd suggest that he starts working with the
ggpl people or, creates his own license and tries to persuade people
to adopt it. In a year or two, you should have proved whether it can
work or not ;-)
The big problem with restricting use for an infrastructure project is
that there is then a group who have to build their own set of
infrastructure. Once they commit to the expense, they may well have no
reason to be plug-compatible with your interface, and then they'll
pressure their suppliers to use their code... Before you know it, you've
got SNA.
cheers, Rich.
--
rich walker | technical person | Shadow Robot Company | rw shadow.org.uk
front-of-tshirt space to let 251 Liverpool Road |
London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de