On 2007-01-11 23:34 -0000, David Bisset wrote:
> I have now completed the next draft of the BOHL (version 0.2).
>
> This includes comments that were made at the User Group Meeting as well as
> many other additions and changes.
>
> There is now a Wiki page for the BOHL where you can get a PDF to review.
>
> http://www.balloonboard.org/balloonwiki/OpenHardwareLicense
>
> It is very important that people read and comment on this draft through the
> mailing list. I will do my best to respond to questions as rapidly as
> possible.
OK. I started this on jan 11th but didn;t sent it because it wasn't
finished. Having read it again I'm not sure what was missing any more
so clearly this should have been sent months ago...
I have just made contact with the FSF's licencing task force who offer
help on this sort of thing, to see what they think, and what help they
can provide.
In the meantime the TAPR open Hardware Licence:
http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html
has been discussed and published. (last few comments on
http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html compare it with BOHL).
I think we need to look seriously about how much of the extra
complexity on the BOHL is actually _needed_ over the TAPR OHL. Some
probably is, but currently we have too much (IMNSHO). The author is an
attorney and disgrees with DB's main concern that we need to put in a
load of stuff to protect designers against manufacturers making duff
boards. That issue is perhaps fundamental to the whole thing.
Efforts to elict comments fo the rest of the world have yeilded
negligible results so far. If we are serious about it then a process
like the one the TAPR people used is needed I think. In the meantime
we probably need to release a licence v0.3 ASAP in order to let the
current design out.
My next task is to distill the comments below into an actual new text.
Comments:
meta-comments first:
Licence is spelt US-style throughout. Is this deliberate? It's
thoroughly wrong from a UK POV, but the distinction between verb and
noun is mostly just confusing so maybe admitting that the US usage is
more sensible is reasonable - it saves us having to get it right, and
it makes it easier to find in text searches for anyone other than
well-educated english people.
It is plastered with 'copyright iTechnic, All Rights Reserved' on
every page, which is no doubt correct, but isn't what people want to
see on a licence promoting open use. a) just say it once and b)
wouldn't it be better if it was copyright Dave Bisset (or
balloonboard.org), thus avoiding the impression of promoting one
company's interests?
13 pages is long. Shorter is good.
Is more like a process description than a licence in places. Danger of
being too specific.
Also - we may have a more fundamanetal problem - we may well be trying
to enforce things beyond the reach of copyright law here - I'm not
sure that distribution of existing hardware comes under the purview of
copyright law, althoug manufacture almost certainly does (at least of
the PCB). So this leads on to wether a copyright licence will work in
this context, or if a contract is really needed. Others have tried,
and in many ways this is a statement of agreed behaviour, rather than
a watertight agreement, so I do thing it is worth attempting, but
again this argues in favour of stipping it down to the fundamental
rights and permissions rather than a lot of stuff about affixing IDs
which we can't enforce anyway.
This is where talking to real lawyers would be helpful.
Defining 'Hardware design files' and
'Current Hardware design files' - that can't be right - too much
detail for a licence. And 'The Design Files'. tighten up.
Principle of 'design and licence encompass hardware as defined by
design files' is good.
I think things like discussions of possible manufacturing methods for
mixing BOHL and non BOHL designs should be taken out of licence.
Does use of 'PCB' preclude use of design on hybrid modules or similar?
More generality is good?
Why are we definitng english terms like 'manufacture'. Overly legal.
'Printable' too, maybe PCB, software.
Merge 'designer' and 'the designers'. Try to do smae for hardware/the
hardware.
recursive definition:
Hardware design documentation consits of 'foo, or anything which is
part of design documentation'
'The license'
Disclaiming your own licence seems a bit defeatist. If you don't
believe the licence itself is any use then why bother? No-one else has
one of these.
Propagation:
typo: BHOL
Propagation info is repeated in the definitions. Try to just say it once.
General permissions:
Why provide contact details valid for lifetime? Why not just provide
files - that's good enough for GPL. contact details _instead_ of files
makes sense.
No need for 'printout, copy' - printing out is copying.
'permitted to manufacture.. automatically agree to licence. Not clear
why that is true. copyright law covers copying/distribution. We are
relying on it. Not sure it says anything about manufacture.
Not permitted to redistribute HMI? OIr does 'hardware doc' cover HMI
and HDD does it include HDF?
General restrictions:
Patent language. Neat, I think.
Not allowed to change hardware docs. I don't see how that is going to
work.
'not permitted to prevent others from selling'. What is the point of
that clause? Of course you can't. 'not permitted to restrict access'
isn't that already covered in 'must make available'?
Don't like clause telling people to follow trade restrictions, export
rules. Those are external rules and should not be part of the licence.
If intel say 'don't send our chips to Iran', it's not up to BOHL to
enforce that, and we should be pleased if our users ignore it.
Next para is much better 'it's is up to you to be responsible'.
Manufacturer
'Must comply with reasonable request for info on compliance.' Why?
We've just said they must comply. That's it.
Why must manufacturer identify source of docs? That they provide docs
is enough. 'You are only allowed to'-> 'You may' (charge a fee).
Designers:
Required to indicate all schematic modifications. This is process, not
licence. Same for 'must have a release ID'. No software licence has
this.
Must pass hardware files - we can't enforce that.
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).
The Warranty bit is in lower case - well done! A rare joy.
Wookey
--
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://wookware.org/
(text/plain)