undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthruflo12y ago0 comments

Our license is here: https://www.opendesk.cc/license -- it is CC Attribution-Non-Commercial (we dropped the Share Alike as an unnecessary restriction).

Our intent is to allow anyone to download, adapt and make the designs for free whilst retaining the right to charge a markup on commercial manufacture / distribution. I.e.: we're not just about Open Source but also about a local making marketplace that (transparently) we make a cut from, in exchange for value offered in QA and ease of purchase.

What we have definitely found is that it is not clear what exactly "Non-Commercial" means. On the one hand, we want to approve makers who commercially re-sell OpenDesks. On the other, we don't want to stop you taking a design to a local CNC shop yourself and asking them to cut it. We'd welcome both legal instruction on the validity of that position and any steer on appropriate license text.

N.b.: if you're interested in a "purer" effort to create a public domain library of CNC-able designs, check out the next stages of the WikiHouse project: http://www.wikihouse.cc/community

0 comments

phreeza12y ago

I think you could achieve this best by dropping the NC clause and enforcing the approval process by licensing the OpenDesk brandname? I think that is how Arduino works, for example. As it stands this is really not open source because you are trying to regulate how the actual information gets used, which in my opinion stifles innovation.

thrufloOP12y ago

That's an interesting suggestion and an interesting distinction -- thank you.

I agree that any and all license restrictions stifle innovation / building on each other's work. I also think it would be nice to limit the application of "open source" so that in a perfect world, you don't get the kudos if you don't encourage the innovation.

On the other hand, the literal meaning of open source is pretty clear: that the source code is available for you to view, tinker with and re-compile. Which with OpenDesk is, I hope, the case -- despite the NC license restriction.

Aside: `license the brand` vs `license the design` reminds me a touch of the What colour are your bits article re-posted yesterday http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 A name is just a tag that can easily be snapped off...

caboteria12y ago

According to the Open Source Definition[0] "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Clause 6 requires that to be Open Source "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

[0] http://opensource.org/docs/osd

1 more reply

markvdb12y ago

Congratulations on your work.

We do quite a bit of CNC work. Our main product is CC BY-SA. I think you'd be surprised how much customers appreciate that, and how much they are willing to work with us.

So I agree with phreeza. Licensing the brand name as a stamp of approval for OpenDesk looks like a better way to build an ecosystem around your quality design work.

Other options might be to do like the your Richard Stallman did with free software. He delivered the free source code with the (software) product. Essentially you would sell physical furniture including CNC files without commercial limitations.

Or maybe you could, with minimal disruption to your current business model, make the commercial license CC too? Sell a CC BY-SA licensed design. Distribute a CC BY-SA-NC version for free like you do.

Just my .02€.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse