Talk:License
From c,mm,n
Nice start but needs a lot of work. After reading I'm in doubt what kind of openness you aim at. My comment is largely written from the viewpoint that you want to create openness like GPL (see 'The Foundations of the GPL': http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html).
@ The c,mm,n open product licence
Some remarks concerning the development of a license:
- I think you should consider 3 parts in the process:
1. make your concepts clear, define proper wording and stick to them. 'Source', 'digital model', CAD-file etc are ambiguous. You also might wanna consider roles (c,mm,n; owner; other/users; but: hint c,mm,n probably is just one of the users). Furthermore you could focus more on the license (I found some non-license issues). 2. define usage scenarios, which make clear how and when you use the license. Currently to me it's not clear what kind of openness you aim at. GPL aims at improving software and getting credits, not at earning money. 3. define requirements which explicitly tell what the license should do for you 4. write the license (this is a job for a lawyer, btw: I think you should contact a lawyer soon) 5. In the process you should maintain an moderated Q&A to answer questions like 'what happens when somebody is hurt through malfunction of something I designed'?
- look at the GPL, and the history of GPL. There is lots of knowledge about these things. Even better: I think there are more similarities then you might think. To me 'Open source' resembles 'Design documentation' and 'Executable' resembles 'Hardware'. From this viewpoint it might be possible to even use an existing license.
- Nice to know:
1. You're not the first OHL , discussion 2. I won't repeat google a further about open hardware licensing 3. MIT and Nokia submitted a licence to the OSI, which is skeptical an open-source hardware licence is needed: link to discussion
@ Intellectual property
- I suspect 'handing over the intellectual property' is not wise. This at least is not the intention of other open licenses. Furthermore this seems not necessary because the need for changes is fulfilled because it is allowed.
@ Not Allowed
- @ 'To distribute modified or derived work under the c,mm,n brand'. This is not a open hardware license issue but a c,mm,n (brand) license issue.
- @ 'To discriminate groups, persons or fields of endeavour'. Nice, but stated as this a Non-license issue.
- @ 'To distribute software specific source'. I don't understand this one.
@ Moment of disclosure
- @ 'The source should be distributed with the product or derived work ' This is not a license issue.
ReSt: Why is this not a license issue? Where should we state then that blueprints of the product should be incorporated in the product?
@ Patent clause
No license issues here but more c,mm,n-team behaviour. Isn't this just standard patent stuff?
Questions of our lawyers
There are a few questions our Lawyers want 'us' to answer:
how open source is c,mm,n?
- All the blueprints that are made by the c,mm,nity are uploaded on the webplatform. All these designs are therefore open source. The source (the documents that are uploaded) are out in the open .In that way, c,mm,n is open source.
- If you look at the open source initiative definition we are (almost) fully open-source http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd:
- Free Redistribution; you can freely redistribute the 'source' without restriction.
- Source Code; the product or service resulting from the 'source' must include the 'source'.
- Derived Works; we allow modifications and derived works to be redistributed under the same licence.
- Integrity of The Author's Source Code; modifications and derived works should have a different name or clear version number. Changes should be documented.
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups; clear
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor; clear.
- Distribution of License; see opensource.org
- License Must Not Be Specific to a Product; this is a difficult one. Because the subject of the licence is a specific product.
- License Must Not Restrict Other Software; see opensource.org. You might want to include hardware here too.
- License Must Be Technology-Neutral; Kind of holds for hardware I guess.
Bottom-line is, we are fully open-source, but the existing open-source initiative is not equipped yet to deal with that.
is it about the - complete - open source car or also about the different products?
- It is about the open source mobility solution, which can be a car, or something else. The product of the c,mm,n process is a car at the moment, but you can look at it more as a total mobility concept.
- c,mm,n is also mobility in services. For instance a service by the lease company which makes it possible that you can park your c,mm,n car in a special parking lot. Or you can have your package orders delivered in your car while you are working.
- It is about the individual parts of the car more then the whole car itself. Members of the c,mm,nity will be working on their specific tasks more than the car as a whole.
- I guess the subject of the licence is all objects relating the development, design, engineering, testing, production, use and waste of the c,mm,n car. People may use the subjects of the licence as they would: there is no restriction to the application. Well, maybe this is not for warfare and strife.
do all rights go to the community?
- What is the c,mm,nity? We think the c,mm,nity members should be represented by the c,mm,n foundation, and that the foundation have the rights to all c,mm,n content.
- In principle I'm fine with leaving all rights to the author. One thing should be arranged and that is allowing change of the licence. This change is decided upon by the c,mm,n foundation through a predefined decision-making structure.
who can accept a new member?
- Everybody can become a member of the c,mm,nity, by registration on the webplatform. But there are several levels of authoristation defined. Once a person has registered, he has access to the different projects in the platform, but not to all the content of the platform. He can see the workspaces (Exterior, interior, etc), but not the different solutions and documents related to that workspace. For that, he will need to ask permission to the workspace lead member. This way, there is a form of community control in c,mm,n. Only experienced users can create a project (experience points records are kept).
- This is not a licence issue, it is a issue of the by laws of the foundation.
what do we ask of people when they sign in? What information do we want/need?
- Just the regular stuff: name, email, city, country, interests, job. They can edit their user profile later on.
- Bylaw issue of the foundation.
What reasons do we want/need to exclude someone from the community?
- Spamming with non-relevant content. Excluding is a task of the c,mm,nity primarily. They can ask an administrator to remove a user.
- Bylaw issue, this has nothing to do with a licence. There should also be rules about blocking users from the platform of course, but this is no licence, nor a bylaw issue. I think it is called 'terms of use'.
Who can exclude people from a workspace, solutions or the entire platform?
- The workspace lead member can exclude a workspace member from the workspace. The administrators can remove a user from the entire platform.
- Terms of use issue. For the licence it is sufficient to demand proper noting of changes and distribution under another name. This means we might want to protect the name legally through the foundation.
is all information public?
- It is public, but only for users who have requested to become a workspace member.
- Everything the foundation does, should be public. The source should be public from some point on.
who can publish information?
- If you mean with publish: upload it to the c,mm,n website (not the platform), then only the c,mm,n webmaster can do that (at the moment the c,mm,n projectbureau). Uploading documents in the platform can be done by every workspace member.
- See: redistribution (no discrimination against groups, people) and redistributed under same licence. Publication can be done anywhere, as long at it is public. So here we do not defer from the open-source guidelines.
