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
[–] [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