What license(s) do you recommend, and/or not recommend, for open source hardware, and why? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm uncertain if the GPLv3 ^[1]^, or something from Creative Commons ^[3]^, like the CC-BY-SA ^[2]^ license, would be appropriate for open source hardware. I've come across the CERN-OHL-S ^[4]^, which appears interesting, but I've never encountered it in the wild, so I'm wary of it's apparent obscurity.

References

Type: Webpage. Title: "GNU General Public License". Publisher: "GNU Operating System". Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:29Z. URI: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html.
Type: Webpage. Title: "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International". Publisher: "Creative Commons". Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:30Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en.
Type: Webpage. Title: "About CC Licenses". Publisher: "Creative Commons". Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:31Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/.
Type: Text. Title: "CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 - Strongly Reciprocal". Publisher: "CERN". Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:33Z. URI: https://gitlab.com/ohwr/project/cernohl/-/wikis/uploads/819d71bea3458f71fba6cf4fb0f2de6b/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

The big question is how copyleft do you want to license it.

Which means, to what extend are the people building on top of your work allowed to keep their improvements and all downstream improvements for themselves and other future rights holder they might sell it to.

A copyleft license prevents someone from making an improvement and then treating the entire thing as their private property but also stop anyone else from making that improvement on your stuff and continuing progress.

So copyleft is, do you allow future devs building on your things to "pull the ladder up" on everyone else that come after them.

I'd go with no. But that means you cede control of it for yourself as well if you start including other people's improvements into your design, unless you make them sign dual license "contributor license agreement" so that you can have both a private commercial right to the entire thing while also giving copyleft version to the community.

[-] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

License Type	Example License(s)	Can someone “pull the ladder up” after building on your work?	Can you integrate their improvements freely?	Notes
🟥 Strong Copyleft	CERN-OHL-S, GPLv3	❌ No — downstream must open their changes	✅ Yes — everyone must share improvements	Keeps the community free, but restricts proprietary use
🟧 Weak Copyleft	CERN-OHL-W, LGPL	⚠️ Limited — changes to original must be open, but addons can be closed	✅ Mostly — improvements to original are open	Allows extensions/plugins to be proprietary
🟨 Permissive	CERN-OHL-P, Solderpad, MIT	✅ Yes — downstream can close everything	❌ No — unless you get permission, you can't use their closed changes	Maximizes adoption, but allows ladder-pulling
🟦 Dual Licensing	GPL + commercial, or CLA-based	⚠️ Controlled — you allow copyleft for the public, but retain rights for commercial licensing	✅ Yes — you retain full rights via CLA	Good if you want community contributions and a commercial option
⚪ Documentation-only (CC-BY, etc.)	CC-BY, CC-BY-SA	⚠️ Depends — not designed for functional hardware, may not protect source	❌ Unclear — source availability not enforceable	Use only for manuals, not functional designs