 | http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-to-choose-an-open-source-hardware-license http://www.ohwr.org/projects/ohr-meta/wiki/OHW2013 http://www.open-electronics.org/how-to-choose-your-open-source-hardware-license/ To prevent your ideas from being patented: http://www.defensivepublications.org/ http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/Patterns.shtml https://publish.ip.com/ http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html http://patents.stackexchange.com/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents/ Licensces for Software or creative works thta sometines are used for wardware: http://creativecommons.org/ http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://www.eff.org/ The difference between GNU and todays Open hardware licenses is:  GNU is about freedom, The TAPR and CERN Open hardware licences are about giving corporations the RIGHTS to rip you off??? For academic hardware this might not be a problem, but when I read the licences from a hobby perspective then they are very ugly. As a hobby project you make machine, and if you then add a TAPR or CERN licence then you give corporations permission to grab your work. No questions asked. Just take it and make money. This is not saying the developer should get all the money, but only that corporations should not have ANY permission by default. Well, just give it some thought before you pick any of those licenses. |
Home >
