Re: [DIYbio] Fwd: [OpenSCAD] License for scad files

Awesome! We offered to drive him around like a taxi while he was in
town, and he took us up on it! If the science exhibit is still up,
maybe offer to take him there, etc, or something.

Interesting coincidence!

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Cathal Garvey
<cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
> I'm immediately jealous! :) Actually, I'm attending a talk by RMS
> tomorrow at Dublin Web Summit, so perhaps I'll have a chance to badger
> him about Free/Libre Ag/Bio again (FLAB).
>
> I had been emailing him to and fro about a potential visit to Dublin
> previously for Science Gallery's latest exhibit, "Grow Your Own" which
> deals with biohacking and synthetic biology, but couldn't get funding
> together for his transit.. perhaps now that he's here we can eke some
> time from his buy schedule for a talk or panel event? We'll see if I
> get a chance to talk to him tomorrow.
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:51:50 -0700
> Nathan McCorkle <nmz787@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cathal, I had lunch with Richard Stallman years ago and he seemed
>> interested in non-software related open-source licenses, though I
>> didn't get to talk much about DNA specifically. Maybe he would be
>> interested in your case or know someone who would be:
>> rms at gnu period org.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Cathal Garvey
>> <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
>> > My early stuff is still CC-BY-SA-NC, which is irrevocable (with good
>> > reason). I've since relicensed twice: once to switch to CC-BY-SA (I
>> > attained anti-NC enlightenment) and once to switch to GPL, realising
>> > that as far as it matters, OpenSCAD remains "source code" for a
>> > compiled file in the same way that source code for a program is for
>> > a compiled binary.
>> >
>> > The process of "compilation" is what distinguishes
>> > source code, and whether the product is a binary or a physible or a
>> > DNA molecule appears to me irrelevant, though I don't know whether
>> > a court would back me up.
>> >
>> > So, people can pick whether they like CC-BY-SA or GPL, but I rather
>> > GPL.
>> >
>> > In the end, it's irrelevant to my own needs; someone ripped off
>> > Dremelfuge on Shapeways (that is, they derived without licensing
>> > freely, let alone an optional nod or attributive note), and
>> > Shapeways have taken the position that it's not their problem, and
>> > I lack the money or motivation to threaten suit. So the license is
>> > nice, but without enforcement it's no use.
>> >
>> > Yes, if a big guy (TM) ripped me off, I'd contemplate suing them for
>> > free licensing and legal fees, so it's not pointless. Just griping,
>> > I guess; copyright and patents are not designed to protect or
>> > facilitate small people, and good things built upon them inherit
>> > this basic uselessness.
>> >
>> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:58:26 -0400
>> > "Meredith L. Patterson" <clonearmy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Naive question: what about (L)GPL/GFDL instead of (L)GPL/CC?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> --mlp
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > From: Johannes Reinhardt <jreinhardt@ist-dein-freund.de>
>> >> > Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM
>> >> > Subject: [OpenSCAD] License for scad files
>> >> > To: "openscad@rocklinux.org" <openscad@rocklinux.org>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi everybody,
>> >> >
>> >> > while working on BOLTS, I started to think about licensing and
>> >> > scad code and realised that this is a quite complicated topic. I
>> >> > am not a lawyer, so I struggled quite a bit with that. Licenses
>> >> > are of some importance to BOLTS, because I want to make sure,
>> >> > that existing code can be incorporated with little effort, and
>> >> > for that I have to make sure that this is legally possible.
>> >> >
>> >> > I reached a state where I think I understood and then tried to
>> >> > write it up:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://jreinhardt.github.io/BOLTS/doc/general/licensing.html
>> >> >
>> >> > However, today I thought about it from another perspective and
>> >> > struggled again, so I decided to ask for your expertise, maybe
>> >> > you can point out if I misunderstood something.
>> >> >
>> >> > The main problem for me is that scad code is somehow both code
>> >> > and content. On the one hand one can see a scad file as
>> >> > something that is a description of an object, just like a stl
>> >> > file. If you look at it like that, then a CC license makes
>> >> > perfect sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the other hand, scad code is very much code. You can have a
>> >> > scad library that is not a description of an object. For that, I
>> >> > feel, a license tailored towards code, like the GPL or LGPL is
>> >> > better suited. MCAD for example is LGPL.
>> >> >
>> >> > But CC and (L)GPL are incompatible, which means that one cannot
>> >> > use them together. Unfortunately, a lot of the scad code that is
>> >> > around is CC licensed, because the standard license on
>> >> > thingiverse is CC. I find this very unsatisfactory that the
>> >> > available scad code is fragmented into legally incompatible
>> >> > subsets.
>> >> >
>> >> > Greetings
>> >> >
>> >> > Johannes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > OpenSCAD mailing list
>> >> > OpenSCAD@rocklinux.org
>> >> > http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
>> >> > http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > - Bryan
>> >> > http://heybryan.org/
>> >> > 1 512 203 0507
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> >> > Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
>> >> > diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send
>> >> > email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options,
>> >> > visit this group at
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en Learn more at
>> >> > www.diybio.org ---
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> >> > Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >> > send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
>> >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CABaSBawzubc3cQnbK%2BoXgPhoEq3oSOWcpBdndwP8BKENBAZ-2w%40mail.gmail.com
>> >> > .
>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>



--
-Nathan

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9%2BhYS1i9Z_pSALBNV-BC_Cg1MzbjTw6Pv0Nd_d%2B%2B6QMrw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.