Using copyleft licenses for non-programming purposes

Question

Well, what I love about GPL is that any derivative work using GPL-licensed work also needs to be GPL licensed, which guarantees that derivative work is open-source, i.e. when requested the source of it must be available.

That's a great concept! But is it limited to software only?

Let's say that I have written a thesis which explains something which may have a lot usages in engineering, computing etc. Is it possible to license it something like GPL so that everything using my thesis must be open-sourced, for example, machines using it must have a GPL-like license, make their internal structure available and other machines using those machines either and so on; or software using my thesis must be GPL licensed?

In short, is it possible to apply the philosophy of GPL to non-software things and information?

Clarification

Its answer is for non-programming, it maybe non-hardware too. Because, in short, I wonder whether I can use open-source philosophy (especially GPL) for non-programming purposes.

Well, my question has a broad domain but its answer is simply "yes" or "no". If it's yes you should give me a example, if it's no you should explain me why.

Answer 1

...is it possible to apply the philosophy of GPL to non-software things...?

To answer this very narrowly, yes: the GPL itself can be applied to any creative work (writing, pictures, videos, etc.) that are eligible for copyright. However, your question appears to ask about the application of copyleft principles to works outside of the scope of copyright.

To review, the source of GPL's power is copyright. Copyright allows an author of a creative work to say, "No one can share copies or derivatives of this work." The GPL is a way for the author to say, "Okay, you can share copies and derivatives of this work as long as the follow these specific copyleft terms..." If you didn't have the underlying restrictions of copyright, the GPL couldn't demand copyleft terms. Copyright is wall that disallows use; the GPL is a door in that wall that has very specific requirements.

In your specific example, you're talking about the mechanics of a system described in a paper, which are outside the scope of copyright. The text of the paper itself is eligible for copyright, but the ideas contained within it are not. (See the idea-expression divide and the U.S. case Baker v. Selden.) So, the real question here is: is there some fundamental legal right (similar to copyright) that could apply to (1) systems or (2) information in general?

For the first item, patents are a good fit: if you have patented the system described in your paper, then no one can use it without your permission. It is perfectly possible to grant patent licenses to people under sort-of copyleft-like terms. For example, "You can use my patent in your hardware design, but only if you make the schematics available to anyone who owns a copy of your hardware device, and allow them to use, share, and modify those schematics." Again, patent law is the wall here, and your specific licensing terms are the carefully-controlled door.

For information in general, there are typically no laws that restrict the free use of information that is not covered by copyright or patent (except sui generis database rights, in some jurisdictions outside of the U.S., which are sort of like copyright for large-scale non-creative collections of data). If there is no restriction, there can't be any copyleft-style license, because there is no protected right to license.

Answer 2

Technical ideas can not be copyrighted, so copyright is not a sufficient tool to make sure that your idea is only used in ways you want. But ideas can be patented. When your thesis has technical applications, then these applications might be patent-worthy.

When you get a patent, you could vouche to license this patent for free as long as the implementors follow the conditions you outlined.

Answer 3

What you're describing sounds a lot to me like the Creative Commons ShareAlike license. It's a non-software license designed to make a work freely redistributable and remixable, and forces all derivative works to be licensed under the same license.

Here is an excerpt from the summary of the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License:

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

So the general idea of a Creative Commons ShareAlike license is that anyone can redistribute the work, anyone can change the work, and any changed versions or derivatives of the work must also allow all these freedoms.

Perhaps this is close to what you were going for?