[Namaste-dev] Re: Weekly Plan June 2 - June 6
brickle at pobox.com
Thu Jun 5 07:49:40 PDT 2008
IIRC the OHL was set in motion because Creative Commons Licensing covers the
important cases (all docs including published schematics) but doesn't quite
stretch to hardware design.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Michelle <w5nyv at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What do you all think of using Creative Commons licensing for the
> engineering effort?
> Bruce, does your dual-license system extend to multisource engineering
> efforts like this? It would seem to make a lot of sense for a finished
> product where the definition was under the control of a person or group of
> people. Do you think it would extend to multisource
> multi-overlapping-in-time projects with lots of little blocks being worked
> on all the time in organic parallelism?
> The question of how to transition from engineering to manufacturing
> is something I'm planning for, and anything that would make that transition
> easier I'm very interested in getting down in writing. Hence, the weekly
> plan item to start writing a policy.
> Every policy has its price, of course. My goal is to produce a light
> flexible policy that is easy to understand, easy to live with, and easy to
> enforce. The suggestions made so far have been excellent and I sincerely
> appreciate your participation in the conversation.
> Would you be willing to share a copy of your license with us so we
> can learn more about what a working dual license system looks like?
> more soon,-Michelle W5NYV
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
> To: Paul Williamson <kb5mu at amsat.org>
> Cc: Frank Brickle <brickle at pobox.com>; Michelle <w5nyv at yahoo.com>;
> namaste-dev <namaste-dev at amsat.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 4:19:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Namaste-dev] Re: Weekly Plan June 2 - June 6
> Paul Williamson wrote:
> > An open-source policy will be a show stopper for people who can't stand
> to see others profit from their work.
> This isn't necessarily true. I run a dual-licensing system for my own
> business. There is a strong reciprocal license (Affero GPL3) and a
> commercial license. You can use the Open Source license at the cost of
> surrendering any improvements you make with the same rights that you've
> gotten from me, or you can pay for the commercial license. It handily
> sorts out users into those who wish to collaborate and those who just
> want good software and can pay for that. This is certainly possible for
> a project like Namaste, but you'd have to sort out who gets paid for
> what, and that sorting process and the inevitable misallocation would
> likely cause more bad feeling than a "gift" style license. If there were
> commercial potentials and we wanted to avoid the strife, it would be
> better to put funds in a foundation and have the foundation give them
> back to AMSAT.
> Namaste-dev mailing list
> Namaste-dev at amsat.org
The only thing we have to fear is whatever comes along next. -- Austin Cline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Namaste-dev