For Approval: Open Source Hardware License

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
> 
>> If OSI considers a license specifically designed for hardware, why
>> should we want it to be in use for software?
> 
> I'll be glad to take a swing at your question if OSI ever expresses a
> wish to "consider a licence specifically designed for hardware".  Until
> that day dawns, though, your question seems a bit pointless.

It isn't pointless, given that a license specifically designed for
hardware has been submitted (and an updated version is soon to be
submitted) and OSI is still deciding whether to consider it.

>> If they are acceptable, though, there is no reason to require they be
>> in use for software.            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Highlighted assertion is unsupported, and seems dubious on its face:
> _Reasons_ OSI might wish to ask that submitted licences be _in actual use_ 
> for software have already been cited.

Reasons for /software/ licenses to be in actual use for software have
been cited.  I have seen no reasons for /hardware/ licenses to be in
actual use for software.  The obvious reason they should not be is that
a hardware-specific license may work poorly for software.

Matthew Flaschen