Re: Hardware licensing (fwd)

[Patrick Maupin <pmaupin@jump.net>]

> > 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.
> Did Patrick subscribe here ?

Yes, as of a couple of days ago.

> i'm leaving uni soon. i'll very probably be hired by an EDA vendor.
> whygee@f-cpu.org works.

Congratulations and good luck!

Pat

P.S.  I agree with your assessment that "OpenNDA" is probably not
workable.
      The problem is that (a few recent California court cases
notwithstanding),
      NDAs do not really protect information, they only allow the law to
be
      used as a club against people who either (a) acquired the
information
      illegally, or (b) acquired the information legally, but violated
some
      agreement on the use of the information.

      This means that a minor, a poor person, someone in a different
country,
      or any one of a number of categories of people who you cannot
reasonably
      punish, can "liberate" your information and republish it in such a
fashion
      that anybody else can use it.  Your information is now not any
kind of
      secret, not even an open one.  The only recourse you have to fall
back
      on is copyright law, e.g. people using it without your permission
are
      using copies they shouldn't have, and patent law (which is
expensive).

      So, while there are some very legitimate questions about how much
      protection copyright law will afford an open hardware project,
there
      is no question that the value of copyright protection is
independent
      of any disclosure agreement -- disclosure will not negatively
affect
      the protection.  This is why I think (until we are convinced it is
      a completely lost cause) we should proceed with pursuing a
copyright
      based license modeled on the GPL.

-- 
Patrick Maupin
5216 Crooked Oak Cove
Austin, Texas 78749
512 891 6037