[OH Updates] Why you won't be prosecuting a OSHW (or TAPR) license violations the way we prosecute software ones.

[Bruce Perens]

On 08/30/2011 09:05 AM, phillip torrone wrote:
 > my question still is --- WHAT specific clause or text does a TAPR 
license have that any OSHW license *does not have* that would allow 
prosecution in the *specific* scenario you outlined?

It's a high-quality license, in that it was drafted by a competent 
intellectual property attorney rather than an amateur, and was 
extensively reviewed by veterans of Open Source licensing and 
litigation. And it's probably the first high-quality license that is 
specific to Open Hardware. Beyond that, there is no special magic 
invocation that would not be present in another high-quality license.

If I end up in litigation related to the TAPR license, the license won't 
mess us up the way the amateur-written Artistic License 1.0 did in 
Jacobsen v. Katzer. The lower court felt it was tantamount to a 
dedication to the public domain and didn't see any enforceable interest. 
That's why I had to work on the appeal. But winning such a case would 
be, to a great extent, about convincing the judge that there are 
elements of the design that can actually be protected by copyright.
     Thanks

     Bruce