Open source Project / Hardware

Daniel makes a very strong and compelling argument. I hadnt actually thought about the consequences of making something small and blue and calling it Arduino. I suppose because I had always assumed open meant open and didnt think there would be any sort of recourse. Now I can see that if I were to make a small blue variant of the Arduino with a nifty little name and marketed it as such I could get some heat for that. And then again I may not but I dont really know.

Something else that just occurred to me, and maybe this isnt the place to ask, but I am in the process of publishing my Arduino Programming Notebook on Lulu (at cost, non-profit) with a big emblazoned full color photo of the board on its cover. Did I cross a line with the name or the photo I shouldnt have?

I guess then Im in agreement with Daniel that a more clearly spelled out terms of usage might be in order. The way I currently read the CC Attribution Share Alike copyright notice, I can copy, distribute, and adapt the work (including for commercial means) as long as I attribute the creators and redistribute under a similar license. Under the precepts of Open Source this should extend to freely available hardware source files. That and Im not really sure how I could be held liable for making a green version of the decimilia (source files or not) and getting $30 for it instead of 35.

Unless of course the arduino only has open source software and its hardware is in fact not open source then that would make sense. Likewise it might make sense that the hardware is then published under an Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license instead. That would keep things pretty clear and not have arbitrary decisions made of who can make what chunk of hardware with the Arduino moniker tacked on.

I was just looking at the monome project and they make it very clear on their site (once you find it): Their software is open source and free to manipulation etc. Their hardware is not. They make available the schematic only as a way to encourage personal hacking of a monome box. They do not publish their hardware layout for many reasons you can read about on their site. It makes sense and is spelled out clearly regardless of whether you like it or not. With that said you are more than capable of 'rolling your own' monome for personal use as long as you dont sell it. Its just more work that way.

Maybe the team should consider what is in fact open source, decide on who can use the Arduino name and for what purposes, evaluate how the information and source files are to be released and then make this explicitly clear under some form of a terms of usage. As it is now, things are too vague and it feels like you guys should be making the board source files available but aren't coming through. It says the "reference design" is CC'd but what is a reference design? Is that not the current format of the board?

Some things to toss around,
B

Definitely, things are not very clear at the moment. We're hoping to clarify a lot of these issues, but it takes a lot of conversation (both internal and external) about what the principles of the project should be. So far, things have worked okay by having a vague policy and addressing individual questions when they arose. Clearly we've not reached the point where it's important to have an official statement of our position, and we hope to have that ready as soon as possible (while still involving many people in the process of figuring out what that position is).

For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that third party vendors ("Modern Device Company", "Lady Ada") don't publish full CAD files, but they ARE listed and described as third parties.

Hi, can you please clarify what you mean by "don't publish full CAD files"?
I don't think there's a single project right now I have not released full CAD files under OS license, but if this is true I will correct it. Thanks! :slight_smile:

limor

ps. also im not sure where i'm listed and described as a third-party vendor. I am a distributor but that's different, no?

David:

one question for the team to consider is this: If the Arduino designs are CC attribution share-alike, how is someone supposed to attribute without using the Arduino name? For example if someone makes something called, for example, "FunkyDuino", can they put "based on the Arduino" on the board? Maybe the solution is to change the license to share-alike without attribution?

Just another of the many questions for your policy discussion.

D

one question for the team to consider is this: If the Arduino designs are CC attribution share-alike, how is someone supposed to attribute without using the Arduino name? For example if someone makes something called, for example, "FunkyDuino", can they put "based on the Arduino" on the board? Maybe the solution is to change the license to share-alike without attribution?

This is NOT an answer from the team just another users view:

After the Commodore 64 the next computer I bought was advertised as a "NoName PC-Compatible"...
...I bought an LCD yesterday that is HD47800 compatible....
I guess you will not run into trouble with the "FunkyDuino (Arduino compatible)" but with "Barduino" or "Charduino" you might get to close.

Eberhard

P.S: FunkyDuino ?? does that one have a soundsystem on board? I'll order one right now :slight_smile:

thanks eberhard

I just meant that if the name is trademarked, then using the word "Arduino" anywhere on the board is protected use that would have to be licensed, even if it's only to say "Arduino compatible" . Form my slim understanding of trademark law, it's ok to put something like "Arduino compatible in the product description, but you need permission first, and it can't usually be within the main title or name of your product. This makes it potentially very hard to attribute in accordance with the CC license. E.g. "Barebones Arduino", "Arduino Prootshield" etc would require trademark licenses/permission. It's an interesting can of worms, isn't it?

D

It doesn't seem that complicated to me. The plans for your new board will need to include a link back to the Arduino files that they're based on, as required by the CC license. That doesn't mean you can call the board itself an Arduino, as that's a separate (trademark) issue.

Plus, the license we're using also contains the following clause, just in case we needed it (though I don't think we do):

"If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested."

Thanks Mellis, I hadn't thought of that.

Maybe the real issue to clarify is how you'll allow the Arduino trademark to be used on physical designs?

The CC license doesn't cover the boards, only the designs in file/printed page form.

D

Plus, the license we're using also contains the following clause, just in case we needed it (though I don't think we do):

"If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested."

i dont understand what this means, or perhaps i do in which case i dont really understand what sort of situation this would used in.

can you give an example?

It basically means you can explicitly request that someone not credit you in a derivative work, even though the license ordinarily requires it. I'm not really sure why you'd use it either - maybe if someone created a derivative of your work that you hated so much that you didn't want anyone knowing it was based on something you did.

Switching to my artist hat, that clause is basically a moral rights clause. In most countries you get it by default, even if you have licensed the reproduction right to someone else. It prevents unsavoury uses of whatever your copyright is.... say someone wants to make an Arduino cruise-missile controller, and you're a pacifist, just as an example.

OOPS. Now we're gonna have the NSA tapping your phone lines, talking to a foreigner about cruise missiles. Sorry

D

It basically means you can explicitly request that someone not credit you in a derivative work, even though the license ordinarily requires it. I'm not really sure why you'd use it either - maybe if someone created a derivative of your work that you hated so much that you didn't want anyone knowing it was based on something you did.

Warning: I'm going to rant a little bit here

Is this something that the Arduino project really needs? I mean can you really force someone to not give attribution? And does this retro-actively modify the share-alike clause of CC? That is, if someone makes a derivative of evil-arduino do they have not give credit? or do they have to credit both or what?

If you ask me (which you didnt :slight_smile: ) this license-hacking seems like its unnecessary and, well, somewhat creepy. I mean, who cares if someone makes a shitty derivative?

Why do I feel strongly this? Well because I've seen what can happen when people try to destroy derivatives: Historically, some people on the NetBSD team hate(d) OpenBSD and the OpenBSD project leader and they would have loved to say "you can't call your project a BSD because we dont like your project, or you!" But (luckily) they couldn't.
Nobody really confuses the two projects, and some people still don't like OpenBSD but you can't really deny that is a BSD derivative, and a very good one that is quite popular with some. The flame war bogged down both groups and was a waste of f'ing time.

(I'm somewhat simplifying the long and tedious netbsd/openbsd flame war here but i think that's probably for the best :wink: )

I urge you to reconsider this clause, I see no positive outcomes and only bad ones. However, I will relent if you have a really good example of when this is essential to the survival of the Arduino project.

limor

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

That's actually part of the Creative Commons licenses and not something I necessarily think needs to or should be there, but that's what the license says, and that same clause is (I believe) in the licenses you're using for your works as well.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

That's actually part of the Creative Commons licenses and not something I necessarily think needs to or should be there, but that's what the license says, and that same clause is (I believe) in the licenses you're using for your works as well.

??? jeez that's kinda retarded. well if its in the Default License then there's not reason to take it out. Sorry for the rant, I take it back! I thought this was an addition to the as-yet-unpublished Arduino License.

I read CC many years ago but didn't remember it. Mea culpa :slight_smile:

limor

ps. I still think its still a silly clause :slight_smile:

you know,

I'm starting to think that the files and the Arduino name should BOTH be open to anyone who wants to use them :slight_smile:

Then the team can promote, trademark and enforce a franchise on Diecimila, BT, NG, etc.

That just seems too darn simple. That way it's entirely equitable to all involved, as everyone has access to the Arduino name and designs to use as they see fit. Some will produce junk, some will produce fine quality things like Diecimila.

I think it's a mistake to think that the team really "owns" the Arduino name anyway... in theory, yes... but

a) it would cost 5 to 10K dollars per instance to prosecute offenders, and
b) the name gained its current value with the contribution of hundred of other people.

We're not talking Linux here :slight_smile:

Daniel

you know,

I'm starting to think that the files and the Arduino name should BOTH be open to anyone who wants to use them :slight_smile:

Well, I think it's probably better that they hold on to the name. It's a unique brand and also keeps confusion down. Someone could, otherwise, buy a thing with the word Arduino on it and be confused as to why its not working the way they expect or is incompatible with the software and then blame Arduino when really its that the clone is not compatible.

Just like generic drugs are the same as brand name, they can say "compare ingredients with Advil!" but they cant say "Advil"

Sure, but don't you find this less confusing:

"Arduino" refers to so many things:

  • open software
  • open hardware designs
  • many many tutorials and documents of unknown copyright,
  • a community
  • a way of learning and doing electronics.

Whereas the anmes of the boards are crystal-clear:
Diecimila = Arduino team produced board
Barebones = Paul Badger's board
Arduino Runtime= NKC electronics' board
Carduino= your board

People know the difference.

The "confusion" claim, i.e. that people will mix up who makes what product, doesn't pan out. Trademarking Arduino would be more about protecting the franchise that extends beyond the boards: community, hardware design control, etc. I'm saying that maybe that should be totally open, name and all. We can still have high-quality Diecimila boards. It's not like anyone is goign to run out and make copies so that they can shave that extra $4 off the profit margin.... it's not worth their while.

Anyway it has the same ring as Suse Linux, RedHat Linux, etc, so we need to be at least able to freely use the Arduino name under license, that much is clear.
D

Someone could, otherwise, buy a thing with the word Arduino on it and be confused as to why its not working the way they expect or is incompatible with the software and then blame Arduino when really its that the clone is not compatible.

just to argue that point on a purely objective level :slight_smile: , I think it's FUD, as there aren't any non-compatible Arduino products that I know of. Anyone who buys a Barebones Arduino (which uses the name but doesn't match the specs of the original) knows they are getting a slimmed-down version of the original, and that the product has been engineered to be compatible with Arudino software. Buyers don't turn around and blame anyone... In fact it seems like Paul's use of the Arduino name and his derivative design works just fine in practice! No collapse of the Arduino empire in sight!

By contrast, the VAST majority of complaints/ compatibility questions in the forum are about the team-produced, officially sanctioned Arduino NG, Arduino BT or Diecimila. Yes they have sold a lot more of those, but still, You would be hard pressed ot find complaint threads about the Barebones.

You could actually make a pretty reasonable argument that Paul should be worried about the Arduino problems turning people off of the Barebones! ;D OK I meant that just in principle.

D

I think we're definitely going to hold on to the name Arduino in the same way as most every other open-source project (e.g. Linux, Debian, Ubuntu, Firefox). While Arduino has become a great community and has benefited from the contribution of many people, there's still a need to preserve the identity and that needs to be controlled in some way. Otherwise, people who aren't part of the community, or who don't agree with the goals of the project, or who just want to sell out the community for a quick buck would have the right to use it as well. Yes, we want to do what's best for the community, but that doesn't mean letting anyone do anything they want.

Otherwise, people ... who just want to sell out the community for a quick buck would have the right to use it as well.

that's FUD too :slight_smile: