[ohf-licenses] Open Hardware Public License, First Draft

[luc marschall]

Le vendredi 07 mars 2008 à 01:05 -0600, Terry Hancock a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> There wasn't much discussion of the notes I posted earlier, so I have
> mostly just followed my own ideas in this draft. I've included it below
> in plain text form (I also have a nicely formatted PDF, if anyone wants
> me to send them a copy).
> 
> I'll make further comments in a follow-up post.
I won't speak about the legal aspects but about two definitions, see
below.
> 
> Cheers,
> Terry
> 
> 
> Here's the draft:
> 
> 
> (Proposed)
> Open Hardware Public License
> Draft Version (pre-1.0) by Terry Hancock, 2008-3/6.
> 
> 1 Legal Scope
> 
> 1.1 Purpose
snip
> 
> 1.2 Use Cases
snip
> This license is designed with functional Products in
> mind which are valued primarily in utilitarian terms,
> and so is probably not appropriate for items of
> principally aesthetic value, even when a physical
> manifestation exists, such as with sculpture.
Functional Product
Do you have in mind that this license should cover a wide range of
functional product like screw and bolt, things that fall in the
compoment domain but not especially related to the electronic?
Looking at the proposed domains, one concludes that it's all about
"hardware" as commonly understood, so why not to say that this license
is designed with hardware in mind?
Or this license has a very wide scope?

Note: Art has a lot of functional sculptures, though one never considers
art in utilitarian terms, the Bauhaus had broken this opposition in the
past.

> 2.2 Hierarchical Design Model Terms
> 
> This license models the design process as a series of
> hierarchically-associated Design Domains. Within each
> Domain, there are design Atoms which are combined in
> some creative way to meet design Specifications
> intended to satisfy design Requirements. From the
> perspective of an engineer working in a given design
> Domain, the Atoms are indeed "atomic" and are not
> considered as designed objects, but as raw materials,
> with a given specification of interfaces.
> 
Maybe one needs here the etymological definition of "atomic", that you
seem to refer, no ?
snip
> Works which are referenced solely as Atoms in the
> present Design are said to be Atomic Designs, and
> therefore outside of its scope. Works which employ the
> present Design as an Atom are said to be External
> Designs and are also outside of its scope. Finally,
> other works within the same Design Domain, but whose
> only relationship to the Design are through its
> specified interface in an External Design are described
> as Sibling Designs and are also outside of the scope of
> this license.
I understand the relatively atomic nature of a given design, but I'm
lost when it is said external or sibling.
That looks like russian puppets but one switches from "works" to
"design":
-"atomic designs" is some works in a design
-"external designs" is a design as an atom in some works
-"sibling designs" is a "external design" in some works
I'm a little bit confuse though I understand the necessity of these
status.

luc