Open Hardware Creative Commons Draft

jon at jon at
Fri Jul 16 13:10:49 EDT 2010


However, we have a big disconnect globablly because most Free Software
advocates are ok with running Free Software on Closed/Proprietary and
*Open* Hardware.

This is not acceptable. Free Software should run on Free Hardware.
Translation: Copyleft Software should run on Copyleft Hardware.

I like how wolfgang puts it. Copyleft Hardware is the embodiment of
Copyleft Software.

Thus, you can have Richard Stallman and so many other Free Software
advocates who are OK with running their Free Software stack on
proprietary hardware. Isn't that a disconnect?


On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:56 AM, David Reyes Samblas Martinez
<david at> wrote:
> I think is same (or very alike) situation as in software:
> Free Software != Open Software
> so
> Copyleft Hardware != Open Hardware
> Copyleft Hardware has more things in common with Free software than
> with Open Hardware.
> 2010/7/16 jon at <jon at>:
>> <topPost />
>> This is a good time to call out the parts defined for Copyleft
>> Hardware. Copyleft Hardware is different from Open Source Hardware.
>> Open Source and Open Source HardWare are far too vague of terms to be
>> useful at this point, to describe what is necessary to free the
>> knowledge necessary to build both complete free hardware, business and
>> industry around something like the NanoNote, Milkymist, etc.
>> You can say your product is Qi hardware (aka, Copyleft Hardware) if it has:
>>    * Copyleft Plans (CC BY-SA): Plans to manufacture the device.
>>    * Copyleft Software (GPL): Software to use the device and to
>> construct it from the plans.
>>    * Public Patents (Public Patents): Patents free and clear for
>> technology on the device. (Patent-Free Technology)
>> The goal of Qi is to have 100% Copyleft Hardware.
>> Check out those pages on the
>> Of importance is to recognize that the more we post about our
>> innovations and technology on this wiki, we are making prior art on
>> our hardware. This is a great approach to transcending the patent
>> problem. More on that later.
>> The Open Source HardWare definition is super vague and not firm or
>> complete enough to be helpful for a major global movement, like
>> Qi/Copyleft Hardware. I know. I flew to the first meeting in NYC and
>> have been participating, ok, well, mostly observing now. I recommended
>> our approach to the problem quite vocally at the meetings on the
>> lists, but our path was not chosen. However, I firmly believe for a
>> really meaningful impact in this field, we need the same extremity
>> that RMS had with the GPL, but with the different beast, hardware.
>> Also, I don't think we need such a big detailed statement to really
>> determine what can be *open* hardware. The more details made, the
>> harder it becomes to make something innovative. More importantly, it
>> is great to be committed to the freeing of as much knowledge as
>> possible, around the creation, production, and use of qi hardware
>> projects and products.
>> So, its great to have this OSHW as a point for counterpoint. However,
>> I would ask us to consider: What about Qi Hardware and our
>> definitions? :)
>> Jon
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Werner Almesberger
>> <werner at> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> relevant.
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qi Developer Mailing List
>>> Mail to list (members only): developer at
>>> Subscribe or Unsubscribe:
>> --
>> Jon Phillips
>> + skype: kidproto
>> +1.415.830.3884 (sf/global)
>> +86.187.1003.9974 (china)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qi Developer Mailing List
>> Mail to list (members only): developer at
>> Subscribe or Unsubscribe:
> --
> David Reyes Samblas Martinez
> Open ultraportable & embedded solutions
> Ben NanoNote, Arduino, Openmoko
> Hey, watch out!!! There's a linux in your pocket!!!
> _______________________________________________
> Qi Developer Mailing List
> Mail to list (members only): developer at
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe:

Jon Phillips + skype: kidproto
+1.415.830.3884 (sf/global)
+86.187.1003.9974 (china)

More information about the discussion mailing list