Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Licence(s) #295

Open
Thorbijoern opened this issue Jan 23, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Licence(s) #295

Thorbijoern opened this issue Jan 23, 2021 · 5 comments

Comments

@Thorbijoern
Copy link

Hi,

i'm a beginner and starting to do some open (source) hardware projects with freecad.
Libraries like this make designing much faster and less tedious, but i want to give good credit to every person whose tools or parts i used to aid me.
So i'm concerned about the Licence of this Workbench. I could not find Licence information in this repo or the wiki neither about the code nor about the library of parts.
I think its important that this Workbench gets propper licences and some explanaition for the users of this workbench, so nobody accidentaly does not credit the work of others and nobody gets into legal trouble.

The People maintaining the BOLTS library made a nice writeup detailing the problems for the maintainers and the users which might aid this library too: https://www.bolts-library.org/en/docs/0.3/document/general/licensing.html

@normandc
Copy link
Contributor

normandc commented Mar 7, 2021

There is a specific License section in this repo's ReadMe:

All Parts in this repository are licensed under CC-BY 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Each Part is copyrighted by and should be attributed to its respective author(s). See commit details to find the authors of each Part.

If you are uploading parts to this repository, please make sure you are the author of the model, or otherwise that you have right to share it here under the CC-BY 3.0 license, and make sure the author is mentioned in the commit message.

Isn't this sufficient? I understand it may not be easy to find out an author through commits. I've just today noticed that a file I myself uploaded 8 years ago was reuploaded last year by another author, with inexplicable (and needless) changes to it.

Enforcing this would be extremely difficult. It would be easier if contributors populated the Project info fields directly within FreeCAD (File --> Project information menu). I admit to not having done it myself.

An easy way out would be to use a more permissive CC license without attribution, maybe? If anyone is unwilling to comply to this license, then they could just avoid uploading files.

@s-light
Copy link

s-light commented Jun 13, 2021

i think an CC0 would be a one option -
as crediting all the authors can get very tedious....
Kicad has done it in another way:
https://www.kicad.org/libraries/license/
the library as itself is CC BY SA.
but has an exception for the inclusion of parts in own projects.

@hasecilu
Copy link
Contributor

hasecilu commented Feb 25, 2022

Should the license be updated to CC-BY-4.0?

In the main README.md file is stated that all parts are under the CC-BY-3.0 licenses.
According with this post the CC-BY-4.0 licenses are more user-friendly and more internationally robust than ever before. Extra reading

In FreeCAD 0.19, Link branch and 0.20 versions in the Project information you can not choose the CC-BY-3.0 license because the suite of licenses is the 4.0 one, so, in order to have coherence between the FreeCAD software and the library a change is needed.

Is it viable to just change the README.md file or not?

Another option is to add or later: All Parts in this repository are licensed under CC-BY 3.0 or later...

@Thorbijoern
Copy link
Author

Sorry that i didn't reply to this Issue sooner. I must have missed the section in the Readme, sorry.
I don't know anymore what my initial issue was, maybe it was late. but i think the initial issue is solved.
I'm not an expert with licenses but the CC-BY 4.0 seems to have some great changes.
I also don't know how a licence change works on a project, but i think there are good reasons to update the licence as @hasecilu stated.
I can't really comment on the matter if other licences would be better...
I only know that libraries or frameworks for writing software are generally licenced more open, like with the MIT licence, but a complete programm uses a stricter licence like GPL. I don't know how that compares to CC but the CERN OHL also has similar variants: https://software.development.fabcity.hamburg/osh-license-discussion/01-introduction/

@rautamiekka
Copy link

This video explains some licenses simply but thoroughly:

Free and Open Source software licenses explained
https://youtu.be/UMIG4KnM8xw?t=91

  • GNU General Public License (GPL), all versions.
  • MIT License
  • Apache License
  • BSD License
  • Creative Commons, all versions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants