is GPL the best choice for an open source hardware licence?

I don't have enough legal knowledge to even start to answer this question myself, however it has come to my attention that some open source hardware projects do not consider the GPL to provide enough protection when it comes to open sourcing physical objects.

The main alternative I have been able to find is the Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Open Hardware Licence, although I am sure that there must be others.

a page describing this licence - [www.tapr.org]

the licence itself - [www.tapr.org]

What are people views on this?

what open source hardware projects dont consider it appropriate?

i've read over it and i think it covers us just fine =)

After looking about a bit more, although I can find a few people, including an opencores developer [www.linux.com] who think there should be special licences for hardware, the only people who I can find who have gone out of their way to actually create one and use it is TAPR..

Their reasoning seems to be that they think that extra clauses are required to deal with patent issues. Most people seem to think that the GPL is fine. Like I said, I'm no lawyer (I know this to be true because people can see my reflection in mirrors & my image shows up on photographic film) and my main reason for starting this thread is because I am not sure of the issues, rather than thinking that I know any better.

If the GPL covers all bases that need covering, then that's great, but I think that it is worth looking at what other people are doing and why they are doing it, in case they have come up with anything that would help or extend the protections for the RepRap project.

Here's an interesting article on license proliferation.
[www.regdeveloper.co.uk]

And here's the most egregious example:
[www.regdeveloper.co.uk]

point taken....