On 08/03/2022, Julian Daich <julian.da...@freecomputerlabs.org> wrote: > El 6/3/22 a las 14:27, Pen-Yuan Hsing escribió: >> >> Dear Julian, >> >> Have you looked at the CERN Open Hardware License 2.0? >> >> https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/Documents/CERN-OHL-version-2 >>> It has a strongly-reciprocal variant which is like the GPL but for >> physical objects: >> >> https://ohwr.org/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt >> > > Hi Pen-Yuan, > > I read both licenses. They have very limited enforceability. > >> Is there something you're trying to do with this LINDS license that the >> CERN OHL 2.0 does not? >> > Yes, better legal enforceability and the way in which trademarks are > handled. > > You are welcome to read and compare. > > Best, > Julian
Dear Julian, What do you mean by "legal enforceability"? What makes a license more or less enforceable? It would be important to define this clearly. And can you explain why the CERN OHL 2.0 licenses are not enforceable enough? As for trademarks, careful and professional legal reading will be needed, too. Depending on how you word a license, it might make the license non-free. Can you explain in detail what your concerns about trademarks are regarding existing licenses such as, but not limited to, the CERN OHL 2.0 licenses? Also, I strongly echo Valentino's response. License proliferation is a big problem and one should avoid creating a new license as much as possible, and to be honest because of my questions above, it is not clear to me what your new license brings to the table. This is not a malicious criticism, just trying to better understand where you are coming from! I am also not a lawyer so might have missed something critical in your new proposed license. _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss