>It is plastered with 'copyright iTechnic, All Rights Reserved'
This is simply a matter of it using an iTechnic document template with a
page footer...
We need to agree who is the real copyright holder, I assume this has to be a
legal entity if it is to mean anything, and it's probably better if it isn't
Balloonz or iTechnic.

>13 pages is long. Shorter is good. 
Shorter is good but over simplified is bad...

>Is more like a process description than a licence in places. Danger of
>being too specific. 
Agreed, it needs to be split into a license and a process.

>Also - we may have a more fundamanetal problem - we may well be trying
>to enforce things beyond the reach of copyright law here

I think Open licenses are simply trying to "undo" copyright law through
contract (?).
So is the scope limited to copyright law or could this be interpreted as a
contract? (In which case you have to conform to "reasonable" clauses etc)


>in many ways this is a statement of agreed behaviour
Exactly, the question is how do you make it binding, and how far do you want
to make it binding.

>rather than a lot of stuff about affixing IDs
>which we can't enforce anyway.
Agreed this is process.
However I think that it is important to affix an ID (BOHL logo) to each
publishable item and the board, just as the standard GPL header is affixed
to all published code. In the limit you can't enforce this, but people who
see the mark will recognise what they can do with the design.

>This is where talking to real lawyers would be helpful. 
Agreed...

>I think things like discussions of possible manufacturing methods for
>mixing BOHL and non BOHL designs should be taken out of licence. 
Agreed, but we need to make it clear that this is an OK thing to do
otherwise we will alienate exactly the people who can make this work.

>Does use of 'PCB' preclude use of design on hybrid modules or similar?
>More generality is good?
Explain "Hybrid Module" that doesn't have a PCB or connectors.

>Why are we definitng english terms like 'manufacture'. Overly legal.
>'Printable' too, maybe PCB, software.
Most legal loopholes exist because key terms aren't defined and turn out to
have some "alternative" meaning that was not intended. So this is just legal
pedantry. Lets hear it from the Lawyers....

>Not allowed to change hardware docs. I don't see how that is going to
>work.
Designers can, manufacturers etc can only add/modify not subtract....

>Don't like clause telling people to follow trade restrictions, export
>rules
The problem is that a design may contain restricted parts, or more likely
could be used in a "critical" way. The restriction might be obvious to the
designer who has read the datasheets but not to the manufacturer or end
user.
(For example a design that exceeds the Low Voltage Directive and requires a
class 2 case).
I think designers have an obligation to pass on that sort of info.
Within a company this is handled internally, in Open Hardware there is no
overall organisation to catch these problems and that is where the BOHL is
trying to fill the gap.
Indeed much of the BOHL is dedicated to providing the sort of protection to
the designers that normally comes through being employed.

Manufacturer
>'Must comply with reasonable request for info on compliance.' Why?
>We've just said they must comply. That's it.
This is addressed to legal compliance ROHS, CE....
However you can argue that they are required to do this anyway...

>Firmware is tricky. It is often a necessary part of the design, but
>there is no requirement that it be free. I think that's wrong. I think
>there needs to be a requirement that the firmware (necessary to run the
>board is under a free software licence). 

This could restrict the market. My intention was to make sure that a company
who wished to place proprietary VHDL into the sizable FPGA on L3 wouldn't
get a request to make it public upheld.
The only alternative is to force a board designer to publish a minimum
firmware set for the board. I think this might run into copyright problems
hence the weaker request to just provide sufficient info for someone else to
write it.

>Wookey

David