Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Hardware License
From: Brendan Scott <lists@opensourcelaw.biz>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:43:16 +1000

 Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:43:16 +1000
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Brendan Scott (lists) wrote:
> 
>> I would guess therefore that a licence for open source hardware would
>> be better expressed in terms of activites.
> 
> That doesn't really solve the problem.  If the design is not protected
> by some right (copyright, semiconductor mask, etc.), people would be
> free to violate the license.  Incidentally, GPLv3 tries to deal with
> hardware by saying "“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that
> apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks."

?  This is a different problem which is not solved (ie scope of rights which might possibly
be licensed v what rights are in fact licensed). 

Brendan