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?"
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.
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.
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
You could theoretically just release something and say "I promise I won't sue you if you redistribute this" but that is not legally enforceable. Which means as a person or company interested in using your work, I should be extremely wary, since you could easily and legally just change your mind and screw me over.
It is legally enforceable. Look up promissory estoppel. Basically it's a legal doctrine that says that if someone makes a representation or promise to you regarding something and you take action based on that promise, that person can't sue you for acting on that promise. E.g. if you release something and promise not to sue anyone for redistribution, then legally you no longer have the right to sue anyone for redistribution.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
first of all, it's Reprap. and they use the GPL and CC licenses.
But they only cover the documentation and the CAD files, of course. The actual ideas and aren't covered by copyright, but by patents.
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.
Modular guitars aren't new, and they've never been popular. Even modular on a smaller scale -- making pick-ups swappable without tools, for instance -- has never caught on with the public; Gibson tried it again just recently and the buying public gave a collective "who gives a fuck?"
I'm honestly not sure why this is the case, although my guess is it's because most of us think of guitar bodies less like commoditized combinations of parts and more as a whole that either has that sound you want or doesn't. Plus, this isn't something that'd be useful for musicians wanting the different sounds during the same show. Cutting out most working musicians and most non-working (aka even poorer) musicians doesn't leave much of a market, I guess