Bruce --<br><br>Let me clarify our current working policy.<br><br>1. All our software is released under LGPL 2.0 and is available on the SVN as source or on link from the website.<br><br>2. Our group does not have a official structure so individual board developers take the role of deciding the path of board development.<br>
<br>2.1 Board developers can do all the work and prototype themselves and then they have all the right to pick how they want to release the board documents.<br><br>2.2 The second approach used by many developers is to submit a proposal to TAPR for funding. The policy is that convention that TAPR makes one run of the board at near cost to recoup the development costs. TAPR has stated they they have no intention being a long term source of production boards. Typically, after the first TAPR run of boards sell out the developer converts the Non-Commercial License to Open Hardware License. Some board developers has declined to convert the license on the boards they design. All production documents are available on the website to allow amateurs to produce their own copies of the boards. <br>
<br>there are currently two companies producing boards on in Europe and one in the US both are listed on the <a href="http://openhpsdr.org">openhpsdr.org</a> website to allow hams to find the boards they need to complete the hpsdr project of their choice.<br>
<br>TAPR which is a separate organisation does have officer, and a formal organisational structure. <br><br>I know that this is an awkward process but developers sign no agreement and we have no officers or organisational structure other than those that participate have some say in the direction of the project.<br>
<br><br>I hope this helps explains what you fine of the website. If the board developers post to the list server or contact me to change their board license, I change the website to reflect the current status.<br><br>Dave KV0S, website manager<br>
<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Bruce Perens <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com">bruce@perens.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****<br>
<br>
<br>[Repeat message, first try bounced due to not being subscribed]<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
It seems that the projects on the HPSDR website uniformly have the Non-Commercial license listed as their license.<br>
This just seems to be a mistake.<br>
<br>
1. We should not represent ourselves as an Open Source project while using the Non-Commercial License, which doesn't qualify as Open Source. The Open Hardware License does.<br>
2. The Non-Commercial License will scare potential manufacturers away.<br>
3. If you have not actually taken out a patent on your device, you can' enforce the Non-Commercial License against manufacturers in a court, as schematics are not copyrightable. You can potentially enforce it against parties that commercially distribute copies of the plans. But you might as well use the Open Hardware License if you don't have a patent. Even this would be difficult to enforce.<br>
4. All of the above seem not to be part of any sensible strategy for HPSDR.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Bruce<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
HPSDR Discussion List<br>
To post msg: <a href="mailto:hpsdr@openhpsdr.org">hpsdr@openhpsdr.org</a><br>
Subscription help: <a href="http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org" target="_blank">http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org</a><br>
HPSDR web page: <a href="http://openhpsdr.org" target="_blank">http://openhpsdr.org</a><br>
Archives: <a href="http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/" target="_blank">http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>KV0S - Dave Larsen<br>
Columbia, MO, USA<br>