Yes, of course. Would be a waste to just make a few then toss away the whole concept.
4 Likes
I’m in no way knowledgeable in these matters but a license type has already been chosen:
6 Likes
I’m not really familiar with the whole licensing thing. I will just use the one that Jos used for his code.
Everyone can do whatever they please. As long as I’m not blamed for any racks that go up in flames because of it. 
5 Likes
And what about bad music that is the result of a mis-tuned synth? Would you accept liability for that?
4 Likes
Ah! GPL V3! Nice. Basically, you can redistribute/sell/modify, but it has to retain the GPL license if you do. It’s a viral license.
5 Likes
One led did not come on while running the test that Jos wrote in the code. After troubleshooting the schematic, the traces on the board, scratching my head, etc. It turned out the LED itself was defect.
First time ever I had this happen. 
after swapping out the culprit it seems to be working fine.
I will create a BoM and build guide and make them available for download together with the Gerber files.
4 Likes
Great, and to think that I never expected anyone other then me ever to use that test!
2 Likes
All relevant stuff is on GitHub now.
I am new to this GitHub thing, so let me know if it is OK like this.
6 Likes
Since @Bas is not distributing the software (as far as I know), he/she is free to chose whatever restriction or lack thereof for the hardware design. From just putting it in the public domain (everybody is free to do whatever they want with it) to full copyright with all rights reserved.
If it is put in the public domain, someone could write new software with a different license to use with it.
Edit: removed extraneous word.
3 Likes
Since you’re writing about the license, I hope o have done it right?
Excellent. Just added to my in progress JLCPCB order 
1 Like
I’m not sure what you are driving at. The software has been in the public domain from the start (downloadable via LMNC and via my git repo) and now a version of the hardware was put in the pubic domain by Bas. So, why would there be an interest in writing the software again with a different license? Or do you mean other software with a different purpose but using the same hardware?
1 Like
The software is not in the public domain; it is covered by the Gnu GPL, with various conditions. Someone might want to use software with a different license, with different conditions.
1 Like
To be slightly less terse than @analogoutput,
Open source is not the same as being in the public domain.
You can publish something without releasing any rights to it.
That’s why you see books with : “Copyright so and so, all rights reserved”.
As another example, patents are published with the express intent of preserving rights (as opposed to keeping your invention secret but risking someone else inventing it independently and preventing you from using your invention by patenting it before you.)
When something is in the public domain, nobody owns any rights over it, there is no ownership or license to limit what you can do with it.
IANAL and intellectual property laws are complex and vary by country so I won’t try to be more detailed than that, but if you are interested to learn more, search “open source vs public domain”.
3 Likes
I’m not sure I’m getting the full picture of the story?
Should I change or remove the License? I don’t care what happens with the pcb I made. I just want to avoid anyone getting upset over any of it.
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone is upset, we are just nerds talking copyright law.
There should be no bias for someone wishing to release their work under any license. If someone wishes to reserve their right to copyright perhaps to sell it themselves, I’m happy.
If memory serves, one cannot specifically copyright a circuit, much like you cannot copyright a gameplay mechanic in game design.
This community supports each other.
If someone I like was selling something that I wanted, you bet I’ll support them.
3 Likes
I am just interrested in the “science” behind these licenses. I am planning to share more. I want to ideally do it right with the licensing.
If anyone could advise me on what to in this example:
I find a schematic online (with or without original creator), create a pcb for personal use, then share the Gerber like some people share strip board layouts.
What would be the right license for such a pcb? Maybe better via PM or some other for that doesn’t spam Jos’s thread.
1 Like
Obviously this can only be done if the existing license allows that and it depends in which country you live.
In my understanding ‘public domain’ does not mean that something is without any license.
1: I doubt there is a world wide accepted definition of the term
2: there is always the fact that the author as a creator owns the original copyright even if he never claimed that.
So in my post I meant ‘published and accompanied with some license’ as opposed to ‘not published / kept as a corporate secret’.
One could see (2) as a license that does not exist in writing but is implicit to the creation process. So I would say something is in the public domain and without any license or copyright if the author explicitly says so in some sort of a statement accompanying the software/hardware) and in this ‘abdicates’ (is that the right word?) his rights. But since I’m no layer (and I guess hardly anyone reading this is) I don’t know whether this is the proper procedure.
Whatever anyone here advises you is probably nothing more than their gut feeling and can be disputed in a court of law in a country of choice. So if you want to do this properly hire a lawyer.
Ah, and I apologize for misspelling ‘public’ in one of my posts as ‘pubic’. That was obviously a typo! Or, …, could it be something Freudian? I remember something happening in my youth I maybe really should talk to someone about …
1 Like
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant: “Someone might want to use this hardware but create different software than the software originally used with it, and assign a different license than the original software used”. The license for the original software could not prohibit that. Of course, for some other hardware, it’s possible the hardware license would not permit that. But I don’t think that’s the case here.
That’s a very, very nonstandard meaning for the phrase “public domain”. Wikipedia:
The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. Those rights may have expired,[1] been forfeited,[2] expressly waived, or may be inapplicable.[3]
Public Domain Day — Frequently Asked Questions | Duke University School of Law :
The public domain is the realm of material — ideas, images, sounds, discoveries, facts, texts — that is unprotected by intellectual property rights and free for all to use or build upon.
The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.
Generally all licenses such as GNU PL, Creative Commons, MIT license, and so forth retain some IP rights, and as the phrase is commonly understood, are not equivalent to public domain.
3 Likes
From my post I think it is clear that I did not want to discuss licenses per se. Too bad that it took so many ‘off topic’ replies before that was addressed.
I think next time I want to comment on something I will seriously consider answering privately to avoid this type of bother.