Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Best Open Source License For Guitar?
First time accepted submitter PraxisGuitars writes "I am working on developing an open source electric guitar. I wish to make the basic structural system completely open and free, with a standardized interface allowing different body shapes and modules to be bolted on. I am having trouble figuring out the best way to release the files. There seem to be at least half a dozen open source licenses out there; The Thingiverse has some precedent for open source 3d data, but version control seems like it might be difficult. I have looked into sourceforge and github, but don't know enough to know if that would be the best choice. Are there other precedents out there? Is there a better way?"
It is not software, maybe a CC license?
Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
the subject says it all
Check out these various Open Source hardware projects for licensing ideas:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/10/31/2221206/open-hardware-journal
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
I think this is something of value the community needs to look at more closely. The OSHW provides licensing models that can help like FOSS. There are also some helpful areas like http://www.ohanda.org/ that provide housing for these kinds of communities - but they don't get a lot of traction. It would be interesting to see if a Sourceforge project page could be used to help communicate and list in the directory or to (more importantly) help promote the idea.
If you wish to keep it standardized, I'd say that you should just release it under public domain or WTFPL, and get a trademark. License the trademark to anyone that adheres to certain specs.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You need to talk to Bruce Parens. He's easy to find.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
What some bicycle people are doing may be similar to what you are trying to do (or not).
bb30
freehub
Their they're doing there hair.
Might want to check this out: https://opendesignengine.net/ http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/10/open-hardware-needs-a-sourceforge-of-its-own-by-mach-30-kickstarter.html
What really matters is the scale length and the neck pocket dimensions. Everyone uses the "Fender" spec so you can use interchangeable necks should one break. Pickup sizes are mostly standardized. The entire industry works around a set of "standards" that mostly work well together as long as you don't copy the headstock look.
Design isn't my bag but what is the frame material holding the pickups? Looks like alu and considering the bridge is attached to the frame, doesn't this mean constant tuning problems like a Travis Bean?
You could use the TAPR Open Hardware License:
http://www.tapr.org/OHL
It's a copyleft-style license drafted by a lawyer that permits a broad range of activity. Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond helped review it. Open hardware licenses are still in the early stages of evolution and adoption. If TAPR does not meet your needs, the Wikipedia entry on Open-source hardware lists more alternatives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware
Why a license is necessary, or why it is an open-source guitar. The basic functionality of a guitar is well beyond reach of any patents or copyrights. And I read your website -- cheap guitars can be had for under $100 these days that are very good for a beginner. Basses are a little more but still, I can have a copy of Jaco Pastorius' bass for $275.
I suppose there is some larger scheme here that I am missing. I know I couldn't play a guitar that looked like that. I would spend more time disentangling it from my clothes and cables than playing it!
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Well, your guitar is not considered to be under copyright.
So open source licenses do not apply to your project, since, well, there is no binary.
So you can Either choose a creative commons license, there are lots of them to choose from.
Or, you could make your own license, along the lines of the GPL, which would disallow people from selling your guitars unless they passed on the files that told how to construct them with the guitar. That alone would be in the spirit of an open source license. The EFF would probabaly help you with that. Or you could look at the RepRap community, it has experience with that topic.
Also, you don't have to offer a license at all.
You could for example, forbid all people to use the files, but hope secretly that all people pirated your files.
In this line of thinking, you could also add a pirate licensing terms, which might just state:
All people who distribute my files are pirates.
Well, that would be kind of strange, so I guess what I really should have said is this:
It really depends on what you want from your license.
I would suggest you restate the question somewhere, but include what you want from the license.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
I find this absolutely fascinating. As someone who has spent some time in a guitar repair shop this makes a lot of sense. Or if it doesn't, it is at least not without some sense. I took a look and the Praxis Zero looks absolutely wicked. To have one of those on stage would draw endless praise and positive attention (speaking from the level of the local scene in a big town). A modular guitar is a great idea as I wouldn't have to "fret" so much over specs as I choose my next axe. Rather, I could just change the specs on my one machine. All makes and models of guitars sound different than all other makes and models - this I don't have to explain to you the particulars of. If I could transform my p-bass into a j-bass for one gig without having switch to a whole different kit that would be great. At the very least it would have a strong and worthwhile nitch. Unfortunately, I have no answers and only questions but I wanted to back you up that this isn't a dumb idea. Will there be a bass centric version?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I'm curious: what part of the design of an electric guitar would not already be completely covered by prior art? Unless you do something really extraordinary with the electronics, which I wouldn't recommend because all that's best done downstream from your output jack, or have some really innovative tuning system (like the automated tuning done on new high end models of the Les Paul) there's not a lot that you're going to do that's going to be new and therefore license-able. The dimensions (or at least the ratios) are standard if you expect to stay in tune, and you can put your tuning pegs at one end of the strings or the other (ala Steinberg). I suppose you could create some innovative process for routing the body or planing the neck or come up with some fantastic new material with extraordinary acoustic properties. Maybe there's room for special design in truss rods or pickups. But I guess the question would be: why?
How about this: Come up with a nicely designed electric guitar and release your design into the public domain. Then you don't have to worry about licenses at all. If it's a fantastic design, you'll get your recognition.
I wonder: was the original Les Paul patented? I know humbucking pickups were, and certain tuning systems/bridges and designs for vibrato tailpieces.
Just so you know, making your guitar in the shape of an axe/rocketship/state of Texas? Already been done.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This, and you can always pair a public domain dedication with a CC0 waiver. They're two great tastes that taste great together.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
You should render components out to images as part of your commit process.
Then you can use the builting image differencing on github:
https://github.com/blog/817-behold-image-view-modes
and you should get nice highlights of only the parts of the pieces that changed in each commit. This will make exploring and managing branches so much easier.
Don't get me wrong, I love open source, and custom guitars are really cool, but what in the world is the point? A quick internet search brings up schematics for every meaningful electric guitar built in the past 50 years. Have you invented a new way to wrap the pickup coils, or invented a new way to wire up volume knobs? It isn't like Fender and Gibson have a monopoly, and wood does grow on trees. You can shape the thing any way you want with tools available at any hardware store. Are you really obsessed with a license for something that anybody could build using commodity parts? I suggest just take pictures of your process and put it in a blog with blueprints or something.
Off the topic of my hat:
First, this looks to me like that pickup testing guitar. Who wants to play such kind of a guitar? Flexibility is all nice and well, but once I settle with the build of a specific instrument, I like it to remain stable and predictable. No desire to hassle around with parts and configurations and settings before each take off. That's why players tend to have more than just one guitar.
Second, don't forget the harp guitar and other multi-neck and multi-string players! Your design, while intended to become open, seems to be focused on the classical single-neck-centric type of a plucked instrument. And please consider the need of space for additional strings—7 on the neck are fine for me, but others prefer more.
Third, and most important: Don't take my harsh critique personal or even discouraging (and I didn't even start to mention that I prefer acoustic multi-string/multi-neck guitars!). Although I'm personally not in the least interested in this particular project, you're up to a great endeavor and I hope you'll find like-minded supporters. I'll keep you bookmarked just to see what this will develop into.
Best, AC
You need to make room for a floyd rose or something similar. I personally would just rather have multiple guitars because that would avoid having to retune.
Also to add more versatility try adding passive pick ups that way you can switch from humbuckers to single coil with the flip of a switch.
Gibson has trademarks on its guitar body shapes. (Yes trademark, not copyright, not patent) It has filed lawsuits in the past. They are currently sueing Paper Jams. Fender tried to get trademarks on the Stratocaster, Telecaster and Precision Bass but failed. Too many companies were already using the design when they filed for the trademarks.
I'd really appreciate it if you kept me updated at andrew_tess1@yahoo.com.au, this fascinates me.
This thing is a physical thing. You get no protection from people copying physical things unless you have a patent. If you were the first to create this (or there is no prior art older than one year) then that is definitely what you should do. Write your own version of a patent, then talk to a patent lawyer, have them do the prior art search and legalese-ize the claims section (the only part that carries any weight), submit it, then respond to any patent prosecutions from the USPTO. Once you have the patent you can license it to companies and individuals in any way you see fit - including open sourcing the designs for individual, non-commercial use, and you can make money off of the patent royalties (hopefully only to the commercial entities licensing your patent) to recoup your patent filing and upkeep costs. You will have to be on the lookout for infringement yourself though, as in the US nobody does that for you, and if businesses think they can get away with not licensing it, they will try.
The only other option is to put it up online somewhere and put it in the public domain - this will prevent anybody else from applying for a patent on the same thing (first-to-file system now) because you can prove that the design was yours and that they stole it.
My vote though is seriously the latter. If you need help funding the patent application just use Ask Slashdot again - I'm sure a bunch of people (myself included) will help fund it if you promise to license it to non-commercial entities for free.
Mozilla does this with Firefox: the code is under an open source license for copyright purposes, but the logo/name are trademarked.
also, many tech standards aren't as cheap or permissive to use, but standards compliance is enforced partially via trademark on the name/logo
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I still prefer the BSD license.
Why are you such an ASS HAT?
If I switch out pickup A for pickup B and then go back to A, how to I make sure i'm going to get the same sound in the second 'A' as in the first... It's bad enough when you put on new strings...
I'm a bassist and I have a Musicman Stingray and a Sterling. Two basses with different pickup magnets and different bodies. Is it worth the modularity to avoid having to spend say another $1500 on a bass? If you're serious about music, you'll just get two instruments one with each sound.
I think it's generally agreed that, especially with typical instruments being made primarily of wood, even seemingly identical instruments have significant variation in tone, and sometimes in playability as well. I would not, for example, expect two Musicman Stingrays to sound exactly the same, even if they were made within days of each other, had exactly the same type of finish, neck shape etc., and were strung with supposedly identical strings. It's not impossible they'd sound about the same, but it certainly would be common for them to sound or feel different somewhat different, and perhaps significantly different. (That's among the reasons that it's still nice to have brick-n-mortar music stores, with good selections of instruments.)
You can post your files, schematics and associated stuff to solderpad.com - which provides a git repo and various ways to view the info.
Seems they accept anything under an Open Source Hardware license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware#Noteworthy_licenses
Without a doubt. Take a Gibson Les Paul Studio Worn Brown (just to keep it down to one style from one manufacturer). Try quite a few and you'll likely find noticeable differences from neck shape, even though they're supposed to be the same each is different is some way) to how many pieces of wood make up the guitar, quality of fretwork, etc. Personally, I try as many as I can and pick the one that speaks to me.
I'd also note that the pricing on these seem high. Mid-range Gibson territory and Gibson's guitars are overpriced in my opinion anyway. Maybe it's just the pricing for "kickstarting" them into production, I couldn't tell from the video. If I were going to spend $1800+ it wouldn't be on one of these. I find them to be a bit on the ugly side. But, to each their own and I wish them the best. What suits me is not what suits everyone else and I don't expect my tastes to rule guitar design :) (And yes, I'm ignoring the open source part of this and the benefits that come from that, though I do realize they are there....)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo5mvTfYSQY
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
If I switch out pickup A for pickup B and then go back to A, how to I make sure i'm going to get the same sound in the second 'A' as in the first... It's bad enough when you put on new strings...
Aside from any miniscule (sub mm) changes in it from slight mounting changes, it is the same guitar, so it should sound the same.
If I attach a 50mm lens to my dslr, then swap it out for a 300mm one, then back to a 50mm one, should I expect the 50mm to behave differently between the two times? no. The laws of physics do not change just to piss off musicians, the same thing will do the same thing.
I'm a bassist and I have a Musicman Stingray and a Sterling. Two basses with different pickup magnets and different bodies. Is it worth the modularity to avoid having to spend say another $1500 on a bass? If you're serious about music, you'll just get two instruments one with each sound.
The price of decent musical instruments these days is ridiculous compared to the material costs, my digital piano costs about 4k new (not that I paid that much for it) but should be nowhere near that, some people are remedying this by building it themselves. When you can effectively build it yourself, for cheaper, with better materials.... you know something is seriously wrong.
Don't over-analyse this. Yes, there are no patents that make this necessary, there is a hellava lot prior art too. Anybody can make a guitar, and the amount of study required is not that much and all the information is easy to find (I've looked).
I had a look at the guitar, its gorgeous. I'd like to see people play with the style that he has started and make a whole range of open, gorgeous models.
Having an easy base to build off allows the artist to just get-on with the art. Hopefully the frame and the neck can be bought for a reasonable price. Currently you can buy necks fairly easily and of-course you can mod them.
I'm an IT professional. I'm serious. I've never spent over $1000 on any of my computers. IT pros make more than most musicians... I don't know how the assertion that they should spend more if they're serious makes any sense.
Unless an instrument is completely different (as is likely with an acoustic guitar), the reason most guitarists have multiple guitars is just wankery.
The difference is that a computer is a programmable multi-function device.
When you can program the guitar to have another sound or feel, your argument is valid.
That's not comparable at all, I do most of my computer work on an old P3 laptop that was given to me when it was about to be trashed. And obviously you don't use google, how much do you think their infrastructure costs?
Wow, an IT 'pro'... you are aware that most muscians are amateurs and have part / full time jobs?
Good instruments appreciate in line with inflation whereas IT equipment is a disposable commodity. Sound, build quality and resale are the major concerns with guitars.
A single coil tele with light strings does not sound or play anything like a les paul with heavy strings. The show doesn't stop when you break a string, you take a backup instrument. For songs in altered tunings, you take an instrument and tune it just for that song. Presumably though since you feel you're in a position to comment, you've played more shows than the thousands I've done over the last decade? Afterall, you're an IT 'pro' who thinks tech gadgets are 'wankery' and can probably get by fine with a fisher price PC or an abacus.
http://www.ohwr.org/attachments/735/CERNOHLv1_1.txt
2.1 This Licence governs the use, copying, modification, communication to the public and distribution of the Documentation, and the manufacture and distribution of Products.
This sounds more like an industrial design, and there is a specific type of IP design to protect a shape for a product. There is no need for an open source hardware project to be completely novel, so what he should just do is release the blueprints of his guitar under a GPL license. This is what most people are doing nowadays. Now, if you *really* wish to create something novel, you should then engage a community of luthiers and enthusiasts to develop your design even further.
It seems like the patents for most of the popular designs (ie, Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Les Paul) are long out of patent. As a matter of fact the market is largely many companies just copying those three designs with a few other unique things thrown in.
As a matter of fact there's already a large market for building renditions of these (checkout the builders forums over at http://www.tdpri.com/ if your'e interested). Do we really need a new design when the classics are freely buildable?).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Strings are THE pieces that make the sound. And they're THE wear-and-tear items. If you replace dull strings with new ones (and strings start becoming dull at least as soon as you open the sealed package), you'll have a different sound. Remove a string and put it on again. This will change the sound, too. Other parts (apart from replacing a plastic saddle with one made of bone, or replacing plastic bridge pins with brass pins)—not so much.
If you genuinely want other people to build them, you have to get rid of the non-commercial restriction mentioned on your site. You can't build a market from the handful of people with the interest, equipment and skills to do this.
The idea of "Open Source" is laughable -- you could buy build-your-own-instrument plans long before the birth of software development. I suggest you have a look at the copyright statements on standard guitar plans from StewMac et al.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
This http://ashishb.net/legal/foss-free-and-open-source-code-licensing-faq/ might be of some help. Disclosure: It was written by a friend of mine.
I think its a great open source, I love working out to get a flat stomach and learning guitar