Open Hardware Creative Commons Draft

Werner Almesberger werner at
Thu Jul 15 14:26:57 EDT 2010

Carlos Camargo wrote:
> I think that in the point 1 there is a missing feature:

I think open tools and "open sourcing" are important. But I would
rather put them into guidelines than mixing them with the license.

A license should simply state what you allow to be done with your
work. Whether your work is actually useful or not, is beyond the
scope of the license. There are many ways to create useless work,
depending on expensive tools or requiring unobtainable ingredients
are but a few.

Of course, every developer aiming to further openness should
strive to make their work not only open but also relevant, and
there are probably many cases where constrains that will cause
problems further down the road are readily accepted because they
seem harmless or unavoidable.

In such cases, developers may appreciate guidance that makes them
aware of the issues and that also enables them to make whatever
transition is necessary to ultimately make their work more

A license allowing derivative work also opens another door for
making projects more relevant, namely by enabling others to solve
issues the original developers may fail to perceive or to address.

- Werner

More information about the discussion mailing list