I am building a simple test set using Arduino to test a very simple home made circuit board “X” that I previously built for my employer, a major aerospace company.
Many of my original questions were answered when I read
post num=1187284419
but I’m not home yet.
(sorry yaBB wont allow the full URL since this is my first post)
X is custom designed to fix a particular problem on a particular aircraft, which is not to be discussed outside of proper channels. My company and the USAF like the simple fix, and we will direct a supplier to add this into their design. There are too many units to practically test by hand, so we need a simple test set, which is where Arduino Uno and a Maker Shield comes in. Its Mity Fine !
In drafting up a user manual for my test set I scooped up the Arduino “getting started” guide off the web site. To make it even more idiot proof I deleted all references to versions other than Uno, and minor changes specific to my project. At the bottom of THAT SECTION I have placed the following:
““The Quick Start Guide above is based on the text of the Arduino getting started guide for Windows, which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Code samples from the Arduino guide are released into the public domain. The XXXX Test Set software, hardware and the remainder of this document are proprietary to XXX Aeronautics.””
Which applies CC (hopefully clearly so) to ONLY the “getting started” section adapted from the web site.
My two remaining Questions
(1) does the statement above meet CC license requirements?
(2) whom do I ask for a waiver for release of “Share Alike”
For #2 nothing of value to the community is added, its actually less useful by reducing it down to only the configuration my supplier will use. It is short and clear.
I’m excited about my first Arduino, and the opportunity to use it in an important and critical project. Attribution is no problem whatsoever, the document praises Open Source, the Arduino, and names the Arduino team members. However my company will be afraid to release any proprietary document that contains any “share alike” license language, so #2 would make life much easier, and does not deprive the community of any value.