Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Brendan Scott (lists) wrote:
>
>> I would guess therefore that a licence for open source hardware would
>> be better expressed in terms of activites.
>
> That doesn't really solve the problem. If the design is not protected
> by some right (copyright, semiconductor mask, etc.), people would be
> free to violate the license. Incidentally, GPLv3 tries to deal with
> hardware by saying "“Copyright� also means copyright-like laws that
> apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks."
? This is a different problem which is not solved (ie scope of rights which might possibly be licensed v what rights are in fact licensed).
Brendan
