Balderick
commented
7 years ago It is shame nobody has replied to explain or clarify exactly what the MDK means in reality.
Razer have put their name to the legal stuff but as an OSVR partner it is OSVR and not Razer who have provided this open sourced modelled hardware development platform but not one MDK being added means OSVR-HDK is not really working for its intended purpose.
Sensics not adding the leap motion embedded faceplate found on OSVR Goggles for Public to osvr-hdk tree; though it is a good example of how osvr hdk can be used for hardware development, and as a influential OSVR partner such as Sensics choosing not to provide MDKs for their osvr-hdk based derivatives just screams OSVR is not open sourced.
When I asked about osvr-hdk modules on reddit Sensics developers refused to even acknowledge the existence of osvr-hdk as being an open sourced modelled hardware development platform and persistently claimed OSVR is a software development platform only.
If you look at the evolution of osvr hdk you can see how it grows along with the number of osvr partners growing which means the osvr hdk is collaboratively designed and all osvr partners could use their democratic powers to influence the decisions made in the evolution of osvr hdk.
The osvr hdk is not a Razer product. Razer simply had the global resources for the distribution of the osvr hdk and so their store front was used for selling osvr hdk to consumers.
The MDK licensing criteria probably had to be instated for a reason. Razer making money from other peoples ip is not it; I am sure. It was probably put in place to provide a common ground for all extra modules so that all osvr hdk changes were available in one place.
IANAL and find the legal rhetoric of MDK licensing criteria very off putting because I do not understand what it means or why it has been put in place in an open source modelled hardware development platform.
Third parties contributing MDKs and then maybe decide they want to remove it later is one example of where the MDK licensing would prevent third parties removing modules from osvr-hdk tree. It also makes modules a separate entity from the contributors projects from a legal perspective.
Those are some reasons of why I think the MDK licensing criteria is in place purely to protect long term future of osvr-hdk tree.
VRguy
I've read that this is intended to ensure derivatives and modifications remain open source as well, but this would be better achieved by using a viral license. Assigning IPR to Razer just disincentivizes contributions; you can't create a business selling HDK accessories when Razer owns your designs and can revoke your right to use them.
I've thought twice about publishing mods before, and only went ahead because I don't intend to make money from them. But someone published details of a really interesting set of MR/AR modifications and software on the subreddit yesterday, then deleted the post, all their comments and their whole reddit account when I directed them to this license.