# Seminar week 8: Licensing
## Participants
|initials| name | discord user |
|---|---|---|
| JV| Jerry| Jerzeek |
| AP| Alice Peck| Alicee |
| IW | Ivo | |
| MS| Mik| Borming|
|NH| Nanami|Nanami|
JC | Jose Urra | jurra |
| PO | Pepe Ocampo | jossoca |

# Icebreaker
did you ever **actually** read the terms of conditions

IW Always :). Tracking device for my car was a bit confronting
MS: Only skimmed MIT lisence for GitHub repo

# Questions

IW: where are a few license standards, but can you also write your own terms/license?

IW: What is the benefit of choosing standar licenses as oposed to making your own?

Laura: is it possible to have a standard licenses, and add stuff to it? i.e. academic use

Do you have to mention where are you based for licensing and legal reasons?
- Santosh: Havent seen them

Jerry: what about liability when there is an accident or harm? what if the desing is bad or if the replicator did something wrong was not capable of replicating properly based on the instructions?

legal persons and natural petsons can both license things, this has to do also with who owns the assets, source, ip...

# licence picker
Creative Commons: https://chooser-beta.creativecommons.org/
Software: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/
Hardware:
- [CERN Open Hardware Licenses (S/W/P)](https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/home)
- [TAPR Open Hardware License](https://tapr.org/the-tapr-open-hardware-license/)
- [Solderpad Hardware License](http://solderpad.org/licenses/)
# Exercises

## Exercise 1: What kind of license do you want to use for your project?
:::warning
Your comments bellow
:::

::: spoiler Vincent
Added CERN-OHL-S-2.0 for hardware and GPL-3.0-or-later license for software. https://github.com/studiorabota/wiggle-bin#license. Used https://choosealicense.com/ to simplify the choise and chose copyleft licenses. Added a permissive license first, changed my mind, a bit in doubt...
:::

::: spoiler Ivo

Ivo: hardware CERN-OHL-W v2, software CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 AU, documentation also CC. openlett.com website (c)?

:::

::: spoiler Nemo

Decided to go for separate licences for the different aspects of the project as discussed in the lesson.

Before:
* GPL-3.0

After:
* CERN-OHL-S
* GPL-3.0
* CC-BY-SA

I decided to keep a **strong copyleft** license set, as I think the project is standalone (does not make sense for company or third party to incorporate as small part of a bigger project). If someone wants to (re)use the project code or hardware, it would (in my mind) only make sense if their project is very similar in scope and function (i.e. a spotify music player), and then I would like to 'demand' that they make it available openly (in its entirety) too. If elements were more standalone or more reusable (e.g. a custom spotify api interface, a general purpose local mp3 player, or a really nice button mechanism) I might go for something like `MPL2.0` or `CERN-OHL-W`. In other words: cool if you want to use it, but you have to commit to full 'open'. It makes it less/not attractive for commercialisation by third parties - but that's ok.

For my light scupture I think licences will be weak-copyleft. That may have some aspects of hardware that could be interesting to adapt in 'closed' applications.
:::

::: spoiler Pepe
In general terms, I would like a license that restricts the project, as well as its derivative work, to any kind of patenting. With this in mind, I think I would go for an S version of the CERN OHL license for hardware. And in the case of software, although I didn't look for many options, the GNU GPL seems a great one.
:::

::: spoiler Nanami
I think CC BY 4.0 (or later) is fine for my project, I would not mind other people using my idea for another project, but I would like to be credited whey they use.
:::

## Exercise 2: Investigate an open source hardware project and the license used.
:::warning
Your comments below
:::

::: spoiler Vincent
Was curious about the Plastic Scanner license. GPL 3.0 license. Ok, then I must have made the right choise to add the GPL-3.0 to WiggleBin :smiley:.
:::

::: spoiler Nemo
I had a look at the [licence situation of the UC2 open microscope project](https://github.com/openUC2/UC2-GIT/blob/master/License.md). They split their licences by part, which is nice to see.

Im slightly surprised by the choice for MIT licence. I would think that a weak-copyleft would be more appropriate. Some of the software might be useful for 'closed' projects (which I guess they realise by not opting for e.g. GPLv3), but the project would benefit if the software improvements/modifications are required to be made available. I guess they want to maximise uptake of the project ⁠— MIT should certainly enable that.
:::

::: spoiler Pepe
Looking for a similar project as mine, I checked licensing for [openflexure](https://openflexure.org/). They have a CERN Open Hardware License v1.2 for hardware and GNU General Public License (v3) for software.
:::

::: spoiler Ivo
Freeloader BSD 3-clause license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses.
E-puck https://e-puck.gctronic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=6 own license?

:::