Interesting observation, can you add a reference link @moedn ?
I would still argue that this might hold much power for a good argument of a good Toolchain Research to see what Open Source Tools inter-compatibility is currently at place !
Our tool research database might hold great value to that but can be extended improved for that matter I guess @robfech@MartinSchott@julianstirling
Defining compatibility is hard. Can I update your design from once FreeCAD version to another one. What about convert it to OpenSCAD so I can better combine it with another project? I like the spirit of the suggestion, but you would have to be careful for it not to accidentally limit freedoms
A good suggestion for CERN OHL v3.0, but a very difficult one to define indeed. This issue will be briefly mentioned in the interfacer paper, for future discussion. Should a derivative work under current license terms be allowed to re-release sources in a proprietary format? is that against users’ freedoms? perhaps something for CERN OHL-S and a recommendation for CERN OHL-P?
What about convert it to OpenSCAD so I can better combine it with another project?
This should be fine as OpenSCAD sources are not platform locked-in, controlled by one big proprietary party. I even think that we should encourage, re-distributing derivative work in compatible open formats ^^
jepp, the issue might boil down to a case-sensitive matter. hence, such as for NC licenses, it should be specified by the licensor. in case of doubt → call the licensor
I don’t like the call a licensor solution. Licensors can be hard to track down. I once heard on a podcast a great description of “open”. Which was “the right to proceed without having to ask permission”.
NC licenses are not open because they limit freedoms too much. It would be be nice to think of a way to encourage open CAD use without limiting the freedom to use an open design.
I totally agree with you on this point, maybe we can get someone from CERN to join this discussion? Or we find a good place to discuss this at their site?
Either way I like the intercompatibility aspect to be included, as the copyleft defines the conditions to be open “forever” it is kind of interesting to connect, though I would not limit the file format but its openess in terms of at least STEP or other exportability aspects.
And then again, a license is to my view point at first a declaration of intent to the community and partners not in first place a waterproof legal agreement for the publisher (as one would need the resources and paperwork to proof it). → to be debated on as well
These are possible solutions, but I worry I think increasing variants of licenses. What I hope open hardware can learn from open source software is that excessive license proliferation is a headache down the line.
I do think that the permissive to open idea could be added into licenses with few downsides I can see. It ensures that the original author can access anything build upon their files, without too many restrictions for use. Also encourages the use of open formats. It would just need to be clear that “export” formats such as STEP don’t count, even if they were open.
