Re: Hardware licensing (fwd)

[graham@belegost.mit.edu]

> 
> hi there,
> (please publish where needed)
> 
> graham@belegost.mit.edu wrote:
> (or was it Ian ?)
> > 2)  The established way that companies go about sharing hardware designs is
> > the Non-Disclosure-Agreement. I propose that we should have an OpenNDA.
> <snip>
> 
> for me, that's pure nonsense. i think that it is absurd to say
> that something is both open and closed. the "bad habit" of putting
> the "open" prefix on any word has struck again.
>
This is part of a very old discussion. It was not me but Ian who
proposed the 'Open NDA'. His idea was that if copyright law didn't work
to protect hardware designs, it might be better to switch to contract law.
My only contribution to this was to suggest that it might be better
named the 'Disclosure Agreement'. But in the end it seems nobody
except Ian thought this idea would work. This discussion ended a year
ago, IIRC.
 
> here, it's not only about "openness", but freedom. you have written
> about "the GPL's infectious character" and you propose the contrary.

Not guilty!
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> PS : is it possible to switch the discussion on the 
> hardlicense-discuss@seul.org mailing list ? i don't catch
> anything from the discussion.
> 
Can you let me know (maybe off-list) what the problem is? There
has been no discussion on the list for some time; in the last few
days Patrick Maupin sent some mail to me and rms, which I have
posted on to the list, and Patrick is now continuing his discussion
there. But recently my normal (non-list) mail to you has been bouncing.
maybe there's a problem with your uni email service?

Graham