Wie definiert man Open-Hardware? Dazu wurde jetzt der Vorschlag für eine Version 0.3 der „Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Definition“ vorgelegt mit den folgenden Punkten:
The distribution terms of Open Source Hardware must comply with the following criteria:
1. Documentation
The hardware must be released with documentation including design files, and must allow modification and distribution of the design files. Where documentation is not furnished with the physical product, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining this documentation for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The documentation must include design files in the preferred form for which a hardware developer would modify the design. Deliberately obfuscated design files are not allowed. Intermediate forms analogous to compiled computer code — such as printer-ready copper artwork from a CAD program — are not allowed as substitutes.
2. Necessary Software
If the hardware requires software, embedded or otherwise, to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions, then the documentation requirement must also include at least one of the following: The necessary software, released under an OSI-approved open source license, or other sufficient documentation such that it could reasonably be considered straightforward to write open source software that allows the device to operate properly and fulfill its essential functions.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original hardware. The license must allow for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of products created from the design files or derivatives of the design files.
4. Free redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the project documentation as a component of an aggregate distribution containing designs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. The license shall not require any royalty or fee related to the sale of derived works.
5. Attribution
The license may require derived works to provide attribution to the original designer when distributing design files, manufactured products, and/or derivatives thereof. The license may also require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original design.
6. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
7. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the hardware in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.
8. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the hardware must apply to all to whom the product or documentation is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
9. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the hardware must not depend on the hardware being part of a particular larger product. If the hardware is extracted from that product and used or distributed within the terms of the hardware license, all parties to whom the hardware is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original distribution.
10. License Must Not Restrict Other Hardware or Software
The license must not place restrictions on other hardware or software that may be distributed or used with the licensed hardware. For example, the license must not insist that all other hardware sold at the same time be open source, nor that only open source software be used in conjunction with the hardware.
11. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Ansich finde ich diesen Entwurf einer Lizenz für Open Source Hardware nicht schlecht. Allerdings stört mich Punkt 7 ein wenig.
Ich entwickle momentan an einem modularen Baukastensystem für die Entwicklung von Robot-Plattformen, sowohl Boden als auch Luftgestützt. Und die Module sind extrem robust und leistungsfähig. Es wird Module geben für
* Ansteuerung von Motoren/Aktuatoren
* Navigation
* Bilderfassung und -Verarbeitung
* Kommunikation
* Energiemanagement
Aus Spaß haben ich und ein paar Freunde damit mal eine Paintball-Pistole ausgestattet, dazu ein Bildsensormodul mit einem Haar-like-Feature-Detektor, welcher auf menschlische Sillouhetten konfiguriert war => Fertig war die zielsuchende Paintball-Selbstschussanlage.
Als Pazifist kommt es für mich aber nicht in Frage, dass meine Entwicklungen für Dinge verwendet werden, die explizit dafür entwickelt wurden, Menschen zu schaden. Eigentlich hatte ich vor, das Hardware-Design Open Source zu machen, aber mit der Einschränkung, dass das System nicht zur Entwicklung von Waffen verwendet werden dürfen. Punkt 7 in der vorgeschlagenen Lizenz verbietet aber solche Einschränkungen.
@datenwolf: Dieselbe Diskussion gab es ja auch rund um die GPL und andere freie Software Lizenzen. Der Versuch von Cult of the dead cow eine eigene modifizierte GPL mit genau dieser Einschränkung populär zu machen, hat nicht geklappt. Frei heißt halt „For any purpose“ und deswegen ist es vielleicht auch so erfolgreich.