
The license is the license - detaro
http://www.boldport.com/blog/2015/9/22/the-license-is-the-license
======
ChuckMcM
Perhaps the point was missed? When I read the proposal I read it as one, and
only one thing, trying to find a way to "punish" people who sold something for
profit without acknowledging the originator after having their open source
hardware designs "ripped off".

So I really understand the author's pain of creating something that folks can
use, but not wanting to be associated with a group which isn't effectively
articulating or executing on its goals.

~~~
detaro
But it only gives a new way to punish them if they also display the licensed
certification logo? That's only useful threat if "bad guys" would want to keep
the logo, because people would be less likely to buy products without it. At
which point it becomes "necessary" for legit projects to register for it.

I think the author mostly disagrees that this requirement is a worthy goal,
"just" to get a bit better recognition for their work.

------
mrdrozdov
The author argues that OSHWA is targeting unreasonable people with their
licensing structure, since any participant opts-in to potential fees. I
basically agree, but the concept struck a chord. Why would something like
OSHWA need to exist? Assuming that OSHWA has some motivation besides making
money as an enforcer (which sounds like a ludicrously good business plan if it
works), what itch is OSHWA trying to scratch for participants?

~~~
detaro
I guess the itch is recognition of their adherence to "true" open-source
hardware, and getting an additional tool to force people reusing their
projects to adhere to the license as well. If they manage to establish in
people's minds that "all good open-source hardware projects have this
certification logo", the members have an advantage in public perception.
Punishing a) the bad apples and b) those who don't agree with their principle.

