Open source licence, but no sources.

Perhaps you've noticed it, over the last months me and a few others started to tag designs in the wiki which I consider to not comply with their own licence or to not even claiming open source. For example [reprap.org] , [reprap.org] , [reprap.org] I also remove these from listings like "List or electronics" or equivalents.

I think many RepRappers currently agree at least on a lowest common denominator about what "open source" means:

Sources sufficient to make a copy.

Not surprising, some of the designers/manufacturers aren't enthusiastic abut this tagging. This morning the Alligator Board maker approached me by email and I'm happy at least one person finally speaks up.

For privacy reasons I can't copy this email in here, but the essence is pretty much, he considers to comply with the CC-BY-NC-SA licence by just putting this licence onto the design. There are no schematics sources (PDF only) and nothing about the board layout (no sources, no Gerber files, no PDF). He says sources would be pointless, because a RepRapper wouldn't be able to make a copy anyways, the tagging as NotOpenSource would be not justified.

What do you think? Shall we draw a line here? Like keeping these tags despite the lamenting?

I'll point him to this discussion in a minute.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2015 03:52PM by Traumflug.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Yes, there is a big debate on what it means for a hardware design to be "open source". For example, the Open Source Hardware Association defines it like this:

Quote
Open Source Hardware Association
Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design.

And yes, people here on the forum and wiki do not all agree with this definition. For example, some people agree with all of it except the "and sell" part.

But more importantly, I think everyone can see that a design cannot be open source if it does not "come with sufficient source to make a copy". Personally I think that RepRap's lowest common denominator definition is as good as we can get at the moment.

It is obvious that the Alligator Board does not come with sufficient sources to make a copy, and therefore does not meet the minimum threshold for being "open source".

Until the designer meets the absolute minimum requirements for his design to be "open source", I think the "not open source" tag should stay.

Quote
Traumflug
He says sources would be pointless, because a RepRapper wouldn't be able to make a copy anyways...

There are probably many RepRappers who could copy the design, but either way it is not really relevant. If he wants to call his design "open source" then the source should be open. How can that be hard to understand?

Quote
Traumflug
he considers to comply with the CC-BY-NC-SA licence by just putting this licence onto the design.

That's his prerogative to use CC-NC-*, but CC-NC-* is not open source. The first 3 questions on the FAQ here explain why. CC-NC-* is better than nothing, but it's not open. Open means anyone, regardless of commercial intent, can do what they want with it.

Quote

He says sources would be pointless, because a RepRapper wouldn't be able to make a copy anyways

So he's an arrogant ass too...

Quote

What do you think? Shall we draw a line here? Like keeping these tags despite the lamenting?

I don't think that there is a problem leaving it, but having it clearly marked as not open source I think is legitimate thing to do. And if they can not or will not provide a "source" other than a PDF or images, then it's pointless to say it's open source.

Quote
MattMoses
And yes, people here on the forum and wiki do not all agree with this definition. For example, some people agree with all of it except the "and sell" part.

The inclusion of "Non-Commercial" though can however pertain to more than just the manufacturing of the same or derivative design for a commercial gain. By tagging it as NC, you also violate #8 of the OSHWA definiton:

Quote
Open Source Hardware Association
8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work (including manufactured hardware) in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it must not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.

By a more strict reading of the CC-NC license, I couldn't use the Alligator Board or any other CC-NC hardware in the operation of a business that printed 3D parts and that wasn't involved in the manufacturing of electronics hardware. Whether or not that was the creators original intention we don't know. But it's still ambiguous by the terms of the license which is what creates the problem to begin with.

It seems like there are two definitions for open source, the CC-NC license and then the Open Source Hardware Associations definition. As it stands right now, as long as an individual meets the requirements of the license, which could just be PDF copies of limited source material, then they are kosher as Alligator Board claims.

However, by flagging projects as not OS, it sounds like we are seeking the stricter definition offered by the OSHWA. If that is the case, we should clearly state the conditions for being deemed open source on the RepRap website, even if it is just to reference and link to the current OSHWA standards. Perhaps also we should be tagging and linking to projects that are OS rather than negatively tagging those that don't.

There are different questions here. The main question is:

1. Did the designer upload sufficient files to create a copy of the design?

In the case of Alligator Board, the answer (at the moment) is NO. The board layouts are missing.

The other question (which we usually end up arguing about) is:

2. Is CC-NC-* license an open source license?

Based on many many many previous discussions about this on this forum, I am certain that no one here will be able to come to agreement on Question 2. Furthermore, it is kind of a pointless question anyway because CC licenses don't really have any legal meaning when it comes to a hardware design. Whenever this question comes up, people focus on it, argue about it, and nothing is ever resolved. For this reason, I think it is very good to have a non-controversial "lowest common denominator" compromise.

I think the compromise should work like this:

If there are not sufficient files to create a copy, then it gets the "not open source" tag.

If there *are* sufficient files to create a copy, but the license is some weird thing that people argue about (CC-NC-* or "permission needed" or "attribution requested" or whatever other weird, unfounded, unenforceable, no-legal-basis thing people like to slap on their hardware design), then it does *not* get the "not open source" tag. Because at least the files are available.

Also, not to derail the discussion or anything, but if anyone wants to read a slightly amusing blog post from 2010 where Bre Pettis is bashing the heck out of an electronics developer because they did not post their layout files on the RepRap Wiki, you can click here. The developer eventually uploaded the requested files which are still on the wiki. The schematics were unchanged from the original design so I guess that is why layouts and bill of materials were deemed sufficient.

History repeats in funny ways I guess.

Quote
MattMoses
The other question (which we usually end up arguing about) is:

2. Is CC-NC-* license an open source license?

Based on many many many previous discussions about this on this forum, I am certain that no one here will be able to come to agreement on Question 2. Furthermore, it is kind of a pointless question anyway because CC licenses don't really have any legal meaning when it comes to a hardware design. Whenever this question comes up, people focus on it, argue about it, and nothing is ever resolved. For this reason, I think it is very good to have a non-controversial "lowest common denominator" compromise.

I think the compromise should work like this:

If there are not sufficient files to create a copy, then it gets the "not open source" tag.

If there *are* sufficient files to create a copy, but the license is some weird thing that people argue about (CC-NC-* or "permission needed" or "attribution requested" or whatever other weird, unfounded, unenforceable, no-legal-basis thing people like to slap on their hardware design), then it does *not* get the "not open source" tag. Because at least the files are available.

I think there needs to be a differentiation between "Open Source", "source is open" or "source available", and "closed source". CC-NC and the like are "source is open" so to speak however it's encumbered by one or more restrictions that goes against the Open Source definition/philosophy (be it from OSHWA, OSI, or whoever you want to use as a "governing body" as to what Open Source means). It's extremely clear on the historical software side of Open Source that open means OPEN, as in no restrictions on it's use and derivatives aside from those that might continue to ensure that it remains open. The founders of Open Source have weighed in many times and made that abundantly clear. I don't think I've ever seen one of them say "Well you can be Open but feel free to tell people they can't use it for whatever reason they want." I don't understand why such a concept suddenly becomes so difficult or hard once you talk about hardware.

If someone wants to keep their design protected and not make it truly Open Source, that's fine. They can use a CC-NC, closed source, or whatever they want. And I don't think we should automatically exclude or blackball them from ever being talked about on the Wiki. But they shouldn't be rewarded with a I'm-an-Open-Source badge or label or any other type of indication when they are not. I do think hardware that does fit that definition should be marked as such, and celebrated as such for fitting in with the goal and origins of the RepRap Project.

Quote
cdru
I don't understand why such a concept suddenly becomes so difficult or hard once you talk about hardware.

The simple reason is, the act of making copies has a whole different meaning with hardware. Making a copy of software can be as simple as clicking a button, making a copy of hardware requires a lot more, like raw material, inventory and machinery. As such, the latter regularly justifies monetary reward, a business model appears. While quite a number of companies have making hardware copies as a substantial part of their business model, (almost) no such model exists when it comes to software.

Another distinction is, designing a piece of hardware from scratch ("inspired" by prior art) is typically a lot easier than doing the same with software. Hardware is a lot less complex, so there are relative simple ways to avoid conflicting with an -NC clause.

Putting these together, a -NC clause makes a lot more sense for hardware, but is also a lot less restricting there. In my personal opinion the clause doesn't even matter as long as everybody makes derivatives and (almost) no collaboration happens.

Quote
cdru
If someone wants to keep their design protected and not make it truly Open Source, that's fine. They can use a CC-NC, closed source, or whatever they want. And I don't think we should automatically exclude or blackball them from ever being talked about on the Wiki.

That's a good attitude!

Quote
cdru
But they shouldn't be rewarded with a I'm-an-Open-Source badge or label or any other type of indication when they are not. I do think hardware that does fit that definition should be marked as such, and celebrated as such for fitting in with the goal and origins of the RepRap Project.

I can well see such labels in two or three flavours. Open hardware with -NC clause is undoubtly better than having no sources at all and open hardware without this clause might ( <- IMHO) be better than one with this clause. Don't hesitate to create such label(s) and start tagging designs with it. NotOpenSource or ClosedSource templates show you how such a tag is created.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I like the definition that Traumflug gave, "Sources sufficient to make a copy." as I believe that a reasonably intelligent person would have understood by the phrase "Open Source" in hardware - the understanding of a person skilled in the arts of electronic design would also be about the same.

Where it may get a bit murky is that "Sources sufficient..." for a person skilled in the arts depends on other factors. An annotated schematic would be sufficient for a simple relay board while a board with high frequency components may need the geometry of the physical implementation (pretty much the Gerbers), plus a fairly detailed Bill of Material as well as the schematics - and possibly much else besides.

GPL already covered this issue..

Quote

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

Whatever files the creator used while designing/manufacturing should be provided.

Quote
rmlrn
GPL already covered this issue..

GPL doesn't apply in this case.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Replying to rmlrn,

But only if the design is licensed under the GPL and not simply as "Open Source"
As far as providing the files the creator used, does that include all data sheets, working calculations etc.?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2015 03:50PM by leadinglights.

Quote
leadinglights
As far as providing the files the creator used, does that include all data sheets, working calculations etc.?

That's actually a good question and not easy to answer. For example, the Alligator Board design was made in Altium. Accordingly, a maker having the actual source files would need to buy a licence for that application just to read these sources. Not exactly the ideal situation.

This is another point where software and hardware differ quite a bit. With hardware, expensive applications with proprietary data formats are far more common than in the software world.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
leadinglights
Replying to rmlrn,

But only if the design is licensed under the GPL and not simply as "Open Source"
As far as providing the files the creator used, does that include all data sheets, working calculations etc.?

Sure, I'm just saying that the GPL drafters struggled with this exact problem, and formulated what I consider an elegant response.

As far as data sheets etc., I would say no since those are design aids, not files that are used to produce the final output.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2015 04:05PM by rmlrn.

Quote
Traumflug

Quote
leadinglights
As far as providing the files the creator used, does that include all data sheets, working calculations etc.?

That's actually a good question and not easy to answer. For example, the Alligator Board design was made in Altium. Accordingly, a maker having the actual source files would need to buy a licence for that application just to read these sources. Not exactly the ideal situation.

This is another point where software and hardware differ quite a bit. With hardware, expensive applications with proprietary data formats are far more common than in the software world.

It's not like there isn't open source software written for expensive, proprietary languages like MATLAB or LabView. It's an unfortunate situation but certainly doesn't disqualify it as open source.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2015 04:09PM by rmlrn.

Quote
Traumflug

Quote
rmlrn
GPL already covered this issue..

GPL doesn't apply in this case.

That doesn't mean it can't serve as inspiration. Anyway, the whole idea of "licensing" things which aren't protected intellectual property doesn't make that much sense if you look too closely at it...