Is it "open source" if I don't release the source code ?
Bean
Posts: 8,129
I am working on an accessory for the ZX81 to give it VGA, Sound, and Wii Classic Controller features using a Propeller.
I plan to release everything so others can make one if they want to. Well, not quite "everything". I don't really want to release the source code (PropBASIC), but I will provide the binary to program the Propeller.
Could I still call it "Open source" ? I mean I will release the gerbers, parts list, assembly instructions, Propeller binary, etc.
I don't want to call it "Open source" if it doesn't really meet the definition.
Bean
I plan to release everything so others can make one if they want to. Well, not quite "everything". I don't really want to release the source code (PropBASIC), but I will provide the binary to program the Propeller.
Could I still call it "Open source" ? I mean I will release the gerbers, parts list, assembly instructions, Propeller binary, etc.
I don't want to call it "Open source" if it doesn't really meet the definition.
Bean
Comments
-Phil
Based on what you have listed I would argue that even the hardware isn't open source since you aren't releasing the design files (being able to modify something for your own use is a key element of open source). I'm not sure what the proper term is for what you are describing but there are plenty of projects out there that follow the same model. If you do go the route of making it open source, you want to pick a license, not just say it is open source.
Some relevant reading:
Why do people care so much about the legal side of open source?
Are public GutHub projects open source?
Licensing a repository
Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license?
Does your open hardware project need a license?
Best Practices for Open-Source Hardware 1.0
Open Source Quick Reference Guide
"Public Domain" ?
I want people to be able to make it, but not make other things from it.
Bean
A link to an open hardware repository:
https://ohwr.org/welcome
Very interesting read, thank you.
It seems to me that the author has somewhat of a misunderstanding of copyright and what open source licenses do. They inherently hold the copyright for the software they wrote. The license just says what others are allowed to do with it.
It seems to me that the company that "took my name off my software and assigned the copyright to themselves" violated the terms of the license (at least GPL-3.0, earlier versions may not be the same) and I would guess that this would constitute a copyright violation as well. The use of the product name seems like a trademark issue.
All you have achieved is the right to take legal action and then it comes down to who has the deepest pockets.
Geoff took the best action... He doubled down and produced the next version with so many additional features that the culprit(s) were out on a limb because they had no idea how to match the extras. And the media helped expose the culprit(s). This was a cheaper action than legal, and he has a superior product to boot.
Anyone who then takes that source (signed under NDA) and does what happened is now wide open to legal action as they've signed up. It's a much simpler legal action, but still legal action. And of course, the media can be used as a cheap weapon to turn the crowd against the offender more easily.
The source code is available under a reasonably easy to understand license. It's only failing is that it has a classic "You break it, you keep the pieces, its yours.". policy in it.
As is there are a generous amount of distributions running, some are outright clones of one specific, others are related. And a few are just there.
IMHO, Bean simply follow your own best judgement.
---
Mascot left a note, "Cats need trees the way the programmers need coffee and Coca-Cola machines.".