[License-discuss] Questions Regarding Open Source Hardware Licenses

Sat Mar 7 04:26:05 UTC 2020

McCoy Smith,

Thank you for your response and suggestion, I will certainly reach out to
OSHWA and see if there is any additional information there. I will also
probably try to reach out to some other well known open source
hardware-based companies like Arduino and Prusa, and ask them ideas on
their approaches and how they have tackled the open source hardware
business model.

Sincerely,

Michael

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 3:39 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> You probably want to direct  your questions to the Open Source Hardware
> Association (OSHWA) https://www.oshwa.org/
>
> They have bulletin boards similar to this mailing list:
> https://community.oshwa.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Michael Bretti
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:30 AM
> *To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* [License-discuss] Questions Regarding Open Source Hardware
> Licenses
>
>
>
> To The Open Source License Discussion Group,
>
>
>
> I was recently referred to this mailing group by a member of the Open
> Research Institute, who has been a fantastic help and resource regarding my
> questions and concerns about open source approaches in general. As some
> background, I am currently the only person (as far as I am aware)
> developing and testing open source ion and plasma propulsion systems for
> nanosatellites (like PocketQubes and Cubesats), which I do completely out
> of home. I currently run Applied Ion Systems, which originally started as
> purely hobby, sharing my projects on various social media, but has gained
> support enough in the maker and space communities that I have transitioned
> to an official business. I currently have 2 openly developed thrusters
> onboard the AMSAT-Spain GENESIS PocketQubes scheduled for launch later this
> year, that is a joint collaboration between them, myself, Fossa Systems,
> and the Libre Space Foundation with more collaborations down the road to
> further advance the relatively untouched field of open source satellite
> hardware. I am actively promoting open development of electric propulsion
> systems for satellites to radically lower the barrier of entry and cost for
> them, working on a very small out-of-pocket budget with available resources
> to the average maker vs. traditional multi-million dollar academic and
> research company efforts, and taking on the field in a way that has never
> been done before.
>
>
>
> As I progress into more high performance and potentially innovative
> systems however, I increasingly need to worry about protecting myself and
> my work from competition, being open-source in a highly closed and
> competitive field. From prior discussions, it sounds like I need to start
> to apply open source hardware licenses (lots of people telling me I need to
> patent, but there is no way I can remotely afford that route). However,
> there seems to be little information about this, as well as disagreement
> between various people I have spoken with on the subject. As such, I was
> hoping to get some guidance on the subject, with the following questions
> below:
>
>
>
> 1. What are the main advantages/disadvantages of each of the OSH licenses
> available? I know there are several like CERN OHL 1.2 and TAPR OHL, but I
> don't know if there are other approved licenses, and which would be best to
> apply for my application, or if there is one that is particularly favored
> by the community.
>
>
>
> 2. Should a license be applied to each and every system worked on, or is
> there some way to apply a blanket license (for example, apply one license
> for everything that falls under Applied Ion Systems)? Once a license is in
> place, is it permanent, or can it be changed?
>
>
>
> 3. How can a for-profit open source hardware entity stay competitive and
> protect itself in the market? Do open source hardware licenses offer
> necessary protections, or is there more that is needed? I already have
> information that there is at least one competitor in Europe already looking
> to possibly try and take and leverage my designs themselves. Considering
> everyone else in the field has essentially millions of dollars in backing,
> and I am working out of home with pocket change and small donations from
> the community, in some sense it feels like I am giving away designs and
> expertise to direct competitors while barely scraping by myself, and can't
> be sustainable against mega-funded powerhouses. My key advantage over
> everyone is that I can develop the tech faster and cheaper than anyone else
> by orders of magnitude, and am completely transparent in my work publicly
> and with the community, but at the end of the day I need to be sustainable.
>
>
>
> 4. How can open source innovation be protected? Especially in my case were
> I am working on very high-tech systems in a highly competitive, and
> normally very secretive and non-transparent field, how can I make sure that
> I get credit, or protect myself from others patenting my designs, and
> ultimately using them against me, or worst case, completely legally locking
> me out of working on them myself?
>
>
>
> 5. Finally, is there a hard line that defines open source in regards to
> hardware? Up until now I have released everything with 100% transparency,
> including circuitry, BoMs, CAD, PCB design, test reports, R&D, etc.
> However, depending who I talk to, there is disagreement about what it means
> to be "officially" open source. Some of the more strict members of the
> community I have talked to have said that until I apply licenses, I am not
> actually open source. However, others consider my work open source since I
> have openly released and shared everything for them, and actively engage
> the community and provide info and support how others can do it themselves.
> Is there a hard line between being open source, and is that gated purely by
> licensing? If so, since I have not yet figured out licensing, does that
> invalidate all the work I have done prior as open source? Until now, I have
> thought that my work is open source, and it seems unusual that the
> difference between being open source and not is a single license, despite
> everything being openly available, and what I have provided so far would
> not change other than applying such a license. However, I am not sure if
> there is some official vetting process by the community to be considered
> truly open source.
>
>
>
> I still plan on forging ahead on this path and continuing to openly share
> my developments, but there seems to be little information regarding open
> source hardware licenses, how this can protect open source hardware
> developers, as well as figuring out how to survive as the only open source
> hardware developer in the electric space propulsion field.
>
>
>
> I just want to thank you ahead of time for any suggestions or
> recommendations you can provide, and greatly appreciate your time.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Michael Bretti
>
> Founder/Engineer
>
> Applied Ion Systems <http://appliedionsystems.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200306/baee4a2f/attachment.html>