hxxp://owni.fr/2011/09/23/leroy-merlin-se-paye-les-labos-citoyens/

hxxp://owni.fr/2011/09/26/les-fab-labs-capitalisent/

The hardware is be considered as information, function, or software

in a near future, the material world will be considered totaly has information

SO …

I repeat … do you want a service , a big corporation, ( google or amazon ) to index your free stuff or company : then they become the “cloud/internet” that is no longer free

the cloud, the services, the relationship in the network, the use itself of the tools, the use of the places

and the world of material information should be protected, from all strategy to overcome a licence in a design point of view

Nobody should make money this way ! Or this should mean a reciprocal advantage, but you know it never exist if you don’t define it clearly

From: Bruce Perens
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Subject: [Legal] Open Hardware Contract
To: [email protected]

**
This is my proposal for an Open Hardware Contract, to be joined by
developers and redistributors.

The problem:

– Open Hardware licensing won’t work as well as it does for software
because copyright protection is unavailable for functional designs.
– We want to be able to run Open Hardware with reciprocal licensing a la
GPL, not just gift-style licensing.
– The only path available to us appears to be contract.
– We don’t want to restrict information through a gated community with
NDA.

Thus, I am proposing a contract that Open Hardware developers and
redistributors will join. I refer to the signers as “members” in this
document.

The member benefits will be:

– Use of a controlled logo on their works and to promote their business.
– Patent non-assertion among the members only for objects under one of
our certified licenses.
– A patent pool to be operated for defense of the members.
– Cooperative marketing.
– Whatever else we can think of.

The members will agree to:

– Be bound by the terms of Open Hardware licenses as if copyright applied
to all components of the work.
– Use the logo only under the agreed terms.
– Apply a certified license to works to which the logo is attached.
– Release all useful development files of works to which the logo is
attached.
– Not assert their patents upon other members in regard to works under
one of our certified licenses.

The members will apply the trademarked logo liberally to their works.
Non-members are probably not held to the licenses strongly if they remove
the logo. However, I find that infringers usually exercise no due diligence
whatsoever and will generally leave something like a logo in place. Thus,
the trademark rights associated with the logo can be used to prosecute these
folks if they’re unwilling to comply with the license terms.

Your thoughts?

Thanks

Bruce

_______________________________________________
Legal mailing list
[email protected]

like a agpl licence for cloud / internet services …