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
[–] 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