Skip to main content
Open Source

Return to Question

clarified design without nullifying or removing context from existing answers
Source Link
Life5ign
Life5ign
  • 210
  • 1
  • 7

Situation: I use LGPL licensed software to create some digital assets that contain original designs. I don't modify the original LGPL software in the process; I just use it. The primary use of the assets is the creation of physical objects, via machining or 3D printing. I apply a strong copyleft license, say the GPL, to my copyright-able work.

If end users manufacture and sell such physical objects, do they have to provide the GPL along with the physical objects they go on to create using my digital designs?

I think that this is different than the situation in this post, which refers to assets being created from a software library. This is analogous to how I used the LGPL software to create my designs. In the case of my assets, I created the exact design that the end product is to be created from. That post references the "output" section of the GPL, which is helpful to read, but I can't determine whether or not the physical objects are "output" in the sense described there.

Same situation here: the output doesn't contain substantial portions of the source (code); however, in my case, it seems like the design itself is the substantial portion, whether it is digital or physical in any given manifestation.

My goal is to prevent a corporation from taking the design and mass producing it, without copyleft kicking in, and preventing knowledge of how it was created, and how to create it, from being spread. I'd like people to know that they can make this physical thing too, and be referred back to my repository, allowing them to build upon my work.

How could I get copyleft to propagate to physical output from an identical digital design, or one based on the digital design, and if so, what are the licenses that can accomplish this?

EDIT: added information that will not alter the context of the answers thus far: This design is for making a physical tool that has no artistic expression in a sculptural sense. It is purely utilitarian. It is a new implementation of a more crude version of an existing tool, and adds a new mode of operation and more precision.

Situation: I use LGPL licensed software to create some digital assets that contain original designs. I don't modify the original LGPL software in the process; I just use it. The primary use of the assets is the creation of physical objects, via machining or 3D printing. I apply a strong copyleft license, say the GPL, to my copyright-able work.

If end users manufacture and sell such physical objects, do they have to provide the GPL along with the physical objects they go on to create using my digital designs?

I think that this is different than the situation in this post, which refers to assets being created from a software library. This is analogous to how I used the LGPL software to create my designs. In the case of my assets, I created the exact design that the end product is to be created from. That post references the "output" section of the GPL, which is helpful to read, but I can't determine whether or not the physical objects are "output" in the sense described there.

Same situation here: the output doesn't contain substantial portions of the source (code); however, in my case, it seems like the design itself is the substantial portion, whether it is digital or physical in any given manifestation.

My goal is to prevent a corporation from taking the design and mass producing it, without copyleft kicking in, and preventing knowledge of how it was created, and how to create it, from being spread. I'd like people to know that they can make this physical thing too, and be referred back to my repository, allowing them to build upon my work.

How could I get copyleft to propagate to physical output from an identical digital design, or one based on the digital design, and if so, what are the licenses that can accomplish this?

Situation: I use LGPL licensed software to create some digital assets that contain original designs. I don't modify the original LGPL software in the process; I just use it. The primary use of the assets is the creation of physical objects, via machining or 3D printing. I apply a strong copyleft license, say the GPL, to my copyright-able work.

If end users manufacture and sell such physical objects, do they have to provide the GPL along with the physical objects they go on to create using my digital designs?

I think that this is different than the situation in this post, which refers to assets being created from a software library. This is analogous to how I used the LGPL software to create my designs. In the case of my assets, I created the exact design that the end product is to be created from. That post references the "output" section of the GPL, which is helpful to read, but I can't determine whether or not the physical objects are "output" in the sense described there.

Same situation here: the output doesn't contain substantial portions of the source (code); however, in my case, it seems like the design itself is the substantial portion, whether it is digital or physical in any given manifestation.

My goal is to prevent a corporation from taking the design and mass producing it, without copyleft kicking in, and preventing knowledge of how it was created, and how to create it, from being spread. I'd like people to know that they can make this physical thing too, and be referred back to my repository, allowing them to build upon my work.

How could I get copyleft to propagate to physical output from an identical digital design, or one based on the digital design, and if so, what are the licenses that can accomplish this?

EDIT: added information that will not alter the context of the answers thus far: This design is for making a physical tool that has no artistic expression in a sculptural sense. It is purely utilitarian. It is a new implementation of a more crude version of an existing tool, and adds a new mode of operation and more precision.

Became Hot Network Question
edited tags
Link
Martin_in_AUT
Martin_in_AUT
  • 7.5k
  • 11
  • 40
Source Link
Life5ign
Life5ign
  • 210
  • 1
  • 7

Do physical assets created directly from GPLed, copyleft digital designs (not programs or libraries) acquire the same license?

Situation: I use LGPL licensed software to create some digital assets that contain original designs. I don't modify the original LGPL software in the process; I just use it. The primary use of the assets is the creation of physical objects, via machining or 3D printing. I apply a strong copyleft license, say the GPL, to my copyright-able work.

If end users manufacture and sell such physical objects, do they have to provide the GPL along with the physical objects they go on to create using my digital designs?

I think that this is different than the situation in this post, which refers to assets being created from a software library. This is analogous to how I used the LGPL software to create my designs. In the case of my assets, I created the exact design that the end product is to be created from. That post references the "output" section of the GPL, which is helpful to read, but I can't determine whether or not the physical objects are "output" in the sense described there.

Same situation here: the output doesn't contain substantial portions of the source (code); however, in my case, it seems like the design itself is the substantial portion, whether it is digital or physical in any given manifestation.

My goal is to prevent a corporation from taking the design and mass producing it, without copyleft kicking in, and preventing knowledge of how it was created, and how to create it, from being spread. I'd like people to know that they can make this physical thing too, and be referred back to my repository, allowing them to build upon my work.

How could I get copyleft to propagate to physical output from an identical digital design, or one based on the digital design, and if so, what are the licenses that can accomplish this?