54
What license(s) do you recommend, and/or not recommend, for open source hardware, and why? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm uncertain if the GPLv3 ^[1]^, or something from Creative Commons ^[3]^, like the CC-BY-SA ^[2]^ license, would be appropriate for open source hardware. I've come across the CERN-OHL-S ^[4]^, which appears interesting, but I've never encountered it in the wild, so I'm wary of it's apparent obscurity.

References

  1. Type: Webpage. Title: "GNU General Public License". Publisher: "GNU Operating System". Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:29Z. URI: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html.
  2. Type: Webpage. Title: "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International". Publisher: "Creative Commons". Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:30Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en.
  3. Type: Webpage. Title: "About CC Licenses". Publisher: "Creative Commons". Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:31Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/.
  4. Type: Text. Title: "CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 - Strongly Reciprocal". Publisher: "CERN". Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:33Z. URI: https://gitlab.com/ohwr/project/cernohl/-/wikis/uploads/819d71bea3458f71fba6cf4fb0f2de6b/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I've always liked the idea of gpl. It's open for anyone who wants to play fair, but prevents large corporations from profiting off of your work. They can always license it from you of course, you just get to negotiate that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Hm, I've come across a number of statements that the GPL isn't well suited to hardware ^[1][2][3]^, but I'm not well enough versed in IP law to be confident in my understanding or the soundness of their rationale. Directly from the GNU Operating System:

    Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL.

    In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can't exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way. ^[4]^

    I'm not really sure.

    References

    1. Type: Comment. Author: "K900_" ("u/K900_"). Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: "Can everything be GPL". Author: "cyfyff" ("u/cyfyff"). Publisher: ["Reddit". "r/linux"]. Published: 2019-05-29T04:50:43.079Z. URI: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/buaffg/can_everything_be_gpl/.]. Published: 2019-05-29T04:53:55.513Z. Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:37Z. URI: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/buaffg/comment/ep97hmd/.

      […] The GPL is also a terrible license for hardware IP (see Intel/ARM), for many reasons […]

    2. Type: Comment. Author: "bobc". Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: "Using the (L)GPL as an open-source hardware license?". Author: "mondalaci". Publisher: "KiCad INFO". Published: 2015-12-23T18:41:37Z. URI: https://forum.kicad.info/t/using-the-l-gpl-as-an-open-source-hardware-license/1925/1.]. Published: 2015-12-23T10:05:03.944Z. Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:42Z. URI: https://forum.kicad.info/t/using-the-l-gpl-as-an-open-source-hardware-license/1925/2.

      […] In a nutshell, GPL (and all other software licenses) rely on software being something that can be subject to copyright. In general hardware can not be copyrighted, because copyright is only granted to creative or artistic works, but with some weird exceptions like software, IC masks, yacht designs (!). “Useful articles or utility works” are not generally subject to copyright, but some powerful industrial lobbies got some concessions, as otherwise a software “work” would not be protected under IP laws, although specific software algorithms can be patented. […] tldr; use GPL or LGPL, CC-BY-SA, MIT, etc as you like, as a statement of intent, but realise they have little legal teeth. Other OSHW oriented licenses are equally ineffective to protect or control the use of electronic or hardware designs.

    3. Type: Post. Title: "Using GPL for hardware is a bad idea". Author: "BeagleFury ". Publisher: "RepRap". Published: 2010-03-29T1500. Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:46Z. URI: https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?33,40874.

      […] This in my opinion is a critical flaw... If you want the hardware to be open, first and foremost, you need a license that actually covers hardware. I'm not sure why do people cling to GPL when it does not cover hardware components, (If you search for GPL hardware, one of the top items will be Richard Stahlman saying this same thing -- GPL and hardware do not make sense.) […]

    4. Type: Webpage>Text. Title: "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses". Publisher: "GNU Operating System". Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:51Z. URI: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLHardware. Location: §"Can I use the GPL to license hardware?".
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    It's open for anyone who wants to play fair, but prevents large corporations from profiting off of your work.

    It was just explained to me by many on Lemmy that not just GPL but the actual definition of Open Source requires that you allow large corporations to profit off your work.

    I was extremely surprised to find that out. For decades I thought only the BSD license allowed corporations to profit from your work. It turns out that you can't even technically call your product Open Source if you don't allow corporations to exploit your work.

    I thought it was crazy but I was dogpiled with links showing I was wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Where are you hearing this?? The FSF has an entire licence dedicated to limiting commercial use of your software (the a-gpl), gpl-3 is also much more limiting which us why linus doesnt use it for the kernal, but few would call gpl-3 not open source. Open source means people can modify and redistribute your code, theres nothing preventing you from saying "This code is free (as in beer and freedom). Keep it that way)"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The reason for the creation of AGPL is not "limiting" commercial use. It's there, so that a company commercially using your AGPL project is also required to publish its changes under AGPL, even if the only way they "distribute" the software is as a Application Service Procider (SaaS company). Because under regular GPL, this case wasn't covered, so big companies could use your code, modify it, offer it as a SaaS product and NOT publish their changes unter a free license.

    AGPL specifically exists, so the rules around commercial SaaS use are clear – so I'd argue it's the opposite of "limiting commercial use".

    See: https://yairudi.com/understanding-asp-loophole/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    It was in this thread here:

    https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/21153303

    A company was calling their product Open Source because they published the source code and allowed anyone to modify it. But they didn't want Google taking their work for free. Lemmy users called them scammers/open source washers because they didn't want their work exploited by large corporations.

    I still find it weird that Open Source defenders are adamant that you must allow large corporations to exploit your work or you are a fraud. I had no idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Personally I don't subscribe to that. I'm sure Linus and Torvalds disagree, but I don't care. I remember reading about the corejs developer begging people to donate because he couldn't afford food, meanwhile react, angular, and thus every major company depended on it. Story happens too often. I wish we could be completely open, but it just gets exploited

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    That's part of what FOSS people mean by free/libre. The user (which may be a company) is not restricted in what they do with the software and source code. If it's copyleft, then the only restriction is share-alike/that it remains libre and open. So that includes the right to make a profit.

    There are non-FOSS licences you can use if you only want non-commercial use, or want to apply various restrictions whilst still keeping things foss-like (in the sense that most people can e.g. fork it and generally do what they want with it, but in some scenarios/to some users it will not be foss), but they aren't considered FOSS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    […] I thought only the BSD license allowed corporations to profit from your work. […]

    The MIT License allows this as well ^[1]^.

    References

    1. Type: Article. Title: "MIT License". Publisher: "Wikipedia". Published: 2025-08-17T18:33. Accessed: 2025-09-16T05:09. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License.
      • Type: Text. Location: ¶2.

        […] the MIT License allows reuse within proprietary software, provided that all copies of the software or its substantial portions include a copy of the terms of the MIT License and also a copyright notice. […]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    […] It was just explained to me by many on Lemmy that not just GPL but the actual definition of Open Source requires that you allow large corporations to profit off your work. […]

    IMO, you can define it, or any word, however you want; all that matters is that the definitions are agreed upon between the parties engaging in conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You may find a better answer in the distinction between "profit" and "exploit".

    Does GPL allow a corporation to profit off your work? Yes it does.

    Does it allow them to exploit your work? In my opinion, no.

    Compared to something like MIT which in my opinion lets them both profit and exploit you.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer by any means, just a GPL advocate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Imo profit without compensation is exploitation. If you are paid a salary and the owner sells your burger for more, that's profit. If you make a burger and the owner sells it for profit without paying you anything, that's exploitation.

    As I just found out, as bizarre as it seems, the definition of OpenSource requires that your work can be exploited by large corporations.

    The Lemmy users in the thread were angry with a developer because he didn't want his program exploited by Google/Microsoft/whomever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent