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?"

Comments

Re:public domain

[djdanlib]

Yes, please. Public domain is the most useful "license" you could apply to such a thing. Develop your modular parts standard, give it a name, publish the standard without strings attached, and leave it up to the parts manufacturers and hobbyists to comply with your standard.

Consult the Open Hardware Journal

[Freshly Exhumed]

Check out these various Open Source hardware projects for licensing ideas:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/10/31/2221206/open-hardware-journal

Re:public domain

[SJHillman]

Yes, put it all in the public domain without strings, and then charge an arm and a leg for the strings. Brilliant! After all, what good is a guitar without strings?

Trademark

[king neckbeard]

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.

Re:Trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, my dad is a luthier and while you can copy a number of guitars (Allparts even sells full fender bodys/necks for assembly, as I understand, with Fender's blessing.), there are already dozens of 'open source' guitars available, given that the majority of guitar designs in production today are derivativs of guitar designs dating back from a few decades to a number of centuries. Additionally as an artistic craft, most of them prefer not to make clones of other people's designs as a matter of course (although the differences may be quite subtle in many of the non-electric designs, since the geometries for most of the bodies/sides are pre-determined. You do see alternatives, but there are acoustic and structural considerations which tend to limit sweeping innovations. The exception being bracing inside the guitar. If you can get a mirror or endoscope or something in there, the bracing style can probably give you some ideas on who produced it for hand crafted rather than production guitars. Mind you, there's probably also a sticker in there stating who produced it and when, or in lieu of a sticker a pencil or grease pen.)

Re:Well

[markkezner]

I wouldn't recommend creating your own license unless absolutely positively necessary. To do so would add legal ambiguity to how it can be used and combined with other projects.

Bruce Perens

[bhima]

You need to talk to Bruce Parens. He's easy to find.

Bicycles have tried something similar?

[fotoguzzi]

What some bicycle people are doing may be similar to what you are trying to do (or not).
bb30
freehub

Use the TAPR Open Hardware License

[rbulling]

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

I'm struggling with

[SlippyToad]

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!

Re:public domain

[scheme]

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.

As a bassist...

[wjcofkc]

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?

Re:As a bassist...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Interesting question

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Well

[buback]

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.

Trademark

[ZombieBraintrust]

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.

reminds me of...

[KingAlanI]

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