[License-discuss] Proposal of new new open-source license for graphics (TERO-GL-1.0)

[Bruce Perens]

Hi Morten,

Some Open Source licensors have arrived at the compromise of allowing the
use of their patent claims *necessarily infringed* in use of the licensed
copyrighted property, and no more. This does, of course, allow for
fabrication and use of a machine, not simply simulation of a machine, so I
can see that it would not be what you desire.

Obviously, if the risk of true Open Source is too high, the property should
not be Open Sourced. It seems very clear that you want a limited license. I
looked at the Creative Commons licenses, I don't think any of those are a
great fit either but you might prefer one.

Back when I published my book series as Open Source, it was low risk
because we didn't have e-book readers and people still bought the paper
version. Now, it would not work commercially, just as it doesn't
necessarily work to open a shape in the context of Xometry and SendCutSend.

Regarding a license for graphics, we do have a really large community of
creators of 3D objects going back to the Newell teapot in 1975, but
explicitly for fabrication since the advent of 3D printers. The licenses
these creators are using aren't a perfect fit, but the proposed one doesn't
so far seem to offer them a better path.

    Thanks

    Bruce



On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 5:00 AM Kevin P. Fleming via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025, at 06:31, Morten Fruelund via License-discuss wrote:
>
> As a last resort, we would like to ask you if you see any way that we can
> allow the licensed materials (in the form of graphics) to be used freely
> with the sole exception of not (necessarily) letting anyone make
> functioning, physical copies of the products represented by the graphics
> and still get the license approved by the OSI?
>
>
> This would be roughly similar to publishing software (source code) under a
> license which disallows distribution of devices containing the software. I
> am pretty sure this has been attempted before, but even if it hasn't it
> would fail the OSD compliance test in my opinion (IANAL, of course).
>
> In general attempting to license something using an
> OSI-approved/OSD-compliant license but also making it a 'product' on its
> own will inevitably result in conflict. As has been said many times in may
> places, 'open source' is not a business model, although publishing
> materials under open source licenses can be part of an effective business
> model if the business model is based on additional services or products
> which supplement the open source materials.
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251112/8cadd74d/attachment.htm>