For Approval: Open Source Hardware License

[Matthew Flaschen]

Brendan Scott wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Brendan Scott (lists) wrote:
>>
>>> I would guess therefore that a licence for open source hardware would
>>> be better expressed in terms of activites.
>> That doesn't really solve the problem.  If the design is not protected
>> by some right (copyright, semiconductor mask, etc.), people would be
>> free to violate the license.  Incidentally, GPLv3 tries to deal with
>> hardware by saying "“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that
>> apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks."
> 
> ?  This is a different problem which is not solved (ie scope of rights which might possibly be licensed v what rights are in fact licensed). 

I didn't mean to say GPLv3 solved the problem (I was just mentioning
that definition in passing).  There is no solution; if the law doesn't
grant rights for your design, the license is just a meaningless piece of
paper.

Matt Flaschen