Re: [DIYbio] DIY Science Equipment contest

So, with respect to licensing, the submitter can choose whether
CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-SA-NC? Can they omit CC-BY if they just want the "SA"
part to preserve the commons? (Come to think of it, is there a BY-less
SA CC?)

Acronym soup!

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Mike Kang <tage...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey everyone!
>
> I'm Mike, and one of the two people who are currently running the
> show at Tekla Labs. I got forwarded this conversation from Javier and
> thought I might help clear up some confusion!
>
> So who the hell are we? As Patrik mentioned above, we're just a bunch
> of PhD students at UC Berkeley trying to do something good in our
> free time (If any of you are local feel free to ask to meet up, we've
> already had a great meeting with Counter Culture Labs here in the
> area). A bunch of us are tinkerers as well, and that's really how the
> idea started up. *Basically, we want to make incentives for makers to
> make damn good science equipment, that can be built and used by
> people without the money to buy them. *That being said, we don't
> actually want to own the designs or the equipment - we just want them
> to *publicly exist*. *
> *
> *We don't want your IP*. Your IP is great, but it belongs to the
> person who made it, and we have absolutely no desire to monetize it,
> take it, steal it, do big business words to it, etc re: anything that
> you make. We just want it to be available for people who need it to
> be able to use it. We're kind of like a DIY Lab phonebook. *All the
> money we spend and receive is in the form of donations or prizes -
> sponsors include Autodesk, 123D, BigIdeas@Berkeley, etc*. There's
> actually a lot of foundations or organizations that just give away
> money to do philanthropic things. We will *never* charge money for
> access to the designs we'll host, because *1.) The designs don't
> belong to us *and *2.) That's entirely against the point of what we
> do*.
>
> This is actually kind of a nice setup for us, because we're spending
> other people's money to do what we do :D
>
> As far as Instructables goes, and the boilerplate terms of service,
> *be careful. *If you have plans to patent your design, DON'T SUBMIT
> THEM. Not because of any kind of scheming on their part, but because
> of patent law. You need to have a patent application in the pipeline
> before making any kind of design public in any kind of format, though
> I believe there is a short 1yr grace period during which you can
> still patent after publication. Neither Instructables nor Tekla Labs
> wants the IP to your designs, both of us exclusively run a
> hosting/access service.
>
> *Now, regarding the questions about BY-SA previously:*
> *
> *
> We'd actually welcome some feedback from you on this issue. We picked
> the Creative Commons 3 license because we thought it would afford
> protection to the people who submit designs without hampering their
> freedom to go forward with it independently. An ideal scenario for
> the license we're looking for is:
> 1.) Creator submits design to Tekla Labs, and is forever free to
> monetize, improve, and patent their design at will (though if removed
> from the website we can't guarantee it's removed from the internet
> entirely of course)
> 2.) People who see the design and find it interesting can post it
> elsewhere, so long as they attribute back to the creator and to
> Tekla, they can use it for non-commercial purposes (aka research), so
> long as they credit the creator and Tekla, and finally, they can
> improve upon and modify the design, so long as they still use their
> changes for non-commercial purposes only and credit the creator and
> Tekla. 3.) The creator can extend the freedom to commercialize a
> design to whomever they desire; that is, if someone has a really cool
> modification or attachment to your design and you want to let them
> patent it so that you both can sell it together, that should be
> within your rights.
>
> Basically what we want is protection for the creators while also
> giving them freedom to benefit from their work. We thought the
> creative commons 3 license filled those requirements nicely, but if
> you guys know of a better one that you would prefer that we use
> please let me know!
>
> *In Summary (tl;dr):*
> - Tekla wants to show off your stuff but doesn't want to own your
> stuff
> - Tekla wants to reward people for tinkering together stuff that does
> some good in the world. Neat things are cool too, but we're
> specifically out there to encourage people to do good things.
> - Instructables just wants to cover their ass. If they take your IP,
> they're responsible for it, which can be lots of legal tangle. Better
> to just say "you do what you want with it, and don't blame us for
> anything that goes wrong." The clause in their legalese is a warning
> about the way that patent law is structured, and that publishing a
> design can make patenting difficult or impossible.
> - Our license was picked to try to maximize the freedom of the
> creator while also offering them some protection since they'll be
> putting their stuff on a public stage. Better license suggestions are
> welcome.
> - WE DON'T WANT OWNERSHIP OF ANYTHING. Ownership *must stay with its
> rightful owner*.
>
> If any of you have any more questions, concerns, worries, or need
> clarification on anything please go ahead and send me an email! We're
> really just a rag-tag group of students with optimistic ideas who
> like to make stuff and like people that make stuff too.
>
> Best!
>
> - Mike
>
> On Friday, September 6, 2013 1:22:49 PM UTC-7, John Griessen wrote:
> >
> > On 09/06/2013 07:36 AM, Josiah Zayner wrote:
> > > Submit your stuff and win some cash money and some publicity,
> > > probably
> > more than you would have received without the contest.
> >
> > Oh, a kickstarter for a well planned one might do better by far...
> > And that goes for Sebastien's OD600 meter for $25, if it has a few
> > nice features
> > and looks like it is worth $25 and not going to quit in weather
> > changes and time.
> >
> > Some of us worry about the licensing because that's the way of the
> > manufacturing world
> > and we want to make a difference by freely outflowing good product
> > at low prices
> > without attracting lawyer letters to desist and to pay royalties.
> >
>