[License-review] For Approval – CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Strongly Reciprocal (SPDX: CERN-OHL-S-2.0); CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Weakly Reciprocal (SPDX: CERN-OHL-W-2.0); CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Permissive (SPDX: CERN-OHL-P-2.0)

Pamela Chestek pamela at chesteklegal.com
Sun Oct 11 22:59:02 UTC 2020

On 10/11/2020 8:13 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> SSPL had the problem that the requirement also applied to the
> operational environment, which contains things like network interface
> cards, switches, load balancers, and so on—things that run code for
> which corresponding source code is usually not readily available.
> But going back one step: For an open*hardware*  license, this “open
> stack” requirement can actually be rather onerous, given that
> availability of design tools is still limited.  The license itself has
> some weasel words under 1.7 (b) that seem to acknowledge this.  So I
> need to take back in part what I wrote earlier—in the context of
> hardware, the need for proprietary build tools creates uncertainty
> that appears comparable to the effect of the SSPL.

I found an appropriate management of that problem with the statement in 
1.8 that Available Components only be made available in an open format 
"if the proprietary tool can create it," and, if not, then one is 
excused from providing an "open" version. So in that situation there is 
no forced copylefting. What do others think?


Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com

More information about the License-review mailing list