This page goes into even more nitty-gritty detail about open source hardware.

"Non-commercial" and "Open source"

Open source does not mean non-commercial. You can sell open source hardware or software, and others can sell your work -- as long as they distribute the source code as specified in the license. A license that specifies non-commercial work only may in fact not be open source, depending on whom you ask -- the Open Source Initiative specifically excludes 'noncommercial' licenses from their definition of open source. However, the Open Source Hardware Definition does not take a position on the matter.

Criticism

Limor Fried posted some great discussion about why non-commercial licenses may be counter-productive to open source projects.

Other open source communities' discussions of license choice

• FarmHack.net: http://www.farmhack.net/comment/46
• OpenStreetMap.org's much larger-scale license switchover to the ODbL, a model for why we should do this now rather than wait.
  • Related blog post/summary: http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html
• The Definition of Free Cultural Works, adopted by Wikipedia -- the key points of which are:
  • "To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean:
    • the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
    • the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
    • the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
    • the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works"

Feel free to add sections below or to ask questions.

This page goes into even more nitty-gritty detail about open source hardware. ###"Non-commercial" and "Open source"### Open source does not mean non-commercial. You can sell open source hardware or software, and others can sell your work -- as long as they distribute the source code as specified in the license. A license that specifies non-commercial work only may in fact **not** be open source, depending on whom you ask -- the Open Source Initiative [specifically excludes 'noncommercial' licenses](http://www.opensource.org/licenses) from their definition of open source. However, the [Open Source Hardware Definition](http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW) does not take a position on the matter. **Criticism** Limor Fried posted [some great discussion](http://www.ladyada.net/library/openhardware/license.html) about why non-commercial licenses may be counter-productive to open source projects. ###Other open source communities' discussions of license choice### * FarmHack.net: http://www.farmhack.net/comment/46 * OpenStreetMap.org's much larger-scale [license switchover](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ) to the ODbL, a model for why we should do this now rather than wait. * Related blog post/summary: http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html * The [Definition of Free Cultural Works](http://freedomdefined.org/Definition), adopted by Wikipedia -- the key points of which are: * "To ensure the graceful functioning of this ecosystem, works of authorship should be free, and by freedom we mean: * the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it * the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it * the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression * the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works" _Feel free to add sections below or to ask questions._