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
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Licences are a nightmare to properly understand, I just find someone more knowledgeable than me and listen to them.

Also, OP tell me your conclusion for best hardware licence when you get there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    […] OP tell me your conclusion for best hardware licence when you get there.

    I think I'm just going to go with CERN-OHL-S ^[1]^. I have yet to find anything better, and @ganymede@lemmy.ml raised some good points regarding it ^[2]^, imo.

    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: Post (Comment). Author: "@ganymede@lemmy.ml". Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: "What license(s) do you recommend, and/or not recommend, for open source hardware, and why?". Author: "@Kalcifer" ("@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works"). Publisher: ["Lemmy". "sh.itjust.works". "Open Source" ("!opensource@lemmy.ml")]. Published: 2025-09-04T21:35:12Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/45415245.]. Published: 2025-09-05T01:57:25Z. Accessed: 2025-09-16T05:42Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/45415245/20822528.

      imo i wouldn’t overlook CERN too much due to apparent obscurity. that’s CERN as in WWW & LHC.

      plus it’s specifically designed for hw, unlike most of the others which are more likely to lean sw centric? […]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •