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

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Imo profit without compensation is exploitation. If you are paid a salary and the owner sells your burger for more, that's profit. If you make a burger and the owner sells it for profit without paying you anything, that's exploitation.

As I just found out, as bizarre as it seems, the definition of OpenSource requires that your work can be exploited by large corporations.

The Lemmy users in the thread were angry with a developer because he didn't want his program exploited by Google/Microsoft/whomever.