Timeline for Do physical assets created directly from GPLed, copyleft digital designs (not programs or libraries) acquire the same license?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2023 at 18:41 | comment | added | Barmar | The first-sale doctrine covers selling the CD. But printing out what's on it is making a copy, the copyright holder can prohibit that (except if it's for personal use, via the Betamax rule). Note also that you can't make the CD yourself and then distribute it in violation of GPL, that's a copy; you had to have received the CD from someone authorized to distribute it. | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 17:46 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @Barmar I agree, and think this answer needs to amended, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. I'm allowed to I make a CD with GPL material on it (modified or not) but when I sell that CD, can I rely on first-sale doctrine to then distribute that copy (legally made under the GPL) in ways the GPL would not correspondingly permit the conveyance of a digital copy via electronic reproduction? i.e., can I print out a physical copy of GPL code or artwork and sell it without the GPL text attached? I think your point is a very good one and I'm unsure how to correct my answer. | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 14:52 | comment | added | Barmar | Copyright covers making copies, derivative works, and public performances. Transfering physical objects is not covered by this. You don't need a license to sell a book or DVD. @Life5ign | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 8:03 | comment | added | Life5ign | @Ben that makes sense, everything depends on the underlying law. | |
| Jun 27, 2023 at 4:19 | comment | added | Ben | @Life5ign Copyright licenses like the GPL are merely grants of permission to make copies of a copyrightable work. A license can be conditional (e.g. "you can only copy the work if you also do X, Y, Z"), but they can't create out of thin air any requirement for someone to get your permission in the first place. If the (relevant jurisdiction's) law says the "useful aspects" of your design are not a thing that copyright applies to, then nobody needs your permission (a license) to copy them so it doesn't matter what license you choose. Advising you on the exact dividing line is lawyer territory. | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 19:29 | comment | added | Life5ign | I should clarify my comment above: I don't intend to make this a noncommercial project (restrict others from selling it), because then it wouldn't be open source, and this isn't necessarily what I want. I just want the attribution and license to copyleft itself onto their distribution of either a) the exact design or b) reproductions of the "useful aspects" of the design, without resorting to a patent. Maybe this is impossible. I also just learned that CAD designs can be considered "artistic" in the industry/license terminology, so I probably misspoke above re. my work not being "artistic." | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 18:32 | comment | added | Life5ign | This is excellent, thanks. Can people also transfer ownership of or otherwise distribute their reproductions of the practically useful content without abiding by the terms of the GPL? I do not consider the design artistic (I could be wrong), and I believe the mode of use is novel. With this in mind, is there any way to prevent commercial exploitation with another type of license (e.g. a Creative Commons NC license), without resorting to a patent? Or are all all licenses limited by the narrower definition of copyright and "useful articles" you described above? | |
| Jun 26, 2023 at 16:50 | history | edited | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 14 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2023 at 14:54 | history | edited | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2023 at 13:58 | history | answered | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |