Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
May or may not be a problem, but there is no hardware-specific license on the project.
Describe the solution you'd like
Consider adding something like the CERN OHL-S-2.0 license. This would add a license similar to GPL-3.0 but specifically for the hardware in the project
Describe alternatives you've considered
There are not really any other licenses geared towards hardware that are similar to GPL-3.0 other than CERN OHL-S-2.0
Copyleft: Strong. Requires that derivative works of the licensed software are also distributed under the GPL.
Distribution: Any distribution of the software, modified or not, must include the source code.
Patent License: Provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.
Tivoization: Prevents "Tivoization," where hardware restricts software modifications.
Compatibility: Can be complex when integrating with non-GPL software.
Termination: Automatic license termination upon non-compliance, but allows for remedy.
CERN-OHL-S-2.0 (Hardware License)
Type: Specifically for hardware designs.
Copyleft: Strongly reciprocal. Requires that modifications/derivatives of the design are distributed under the same license.
Distribution: Requires the distribution of all original and modified design files.
Patent License: Includes clauses on patent licensing.
Tivoization: Not applicable, as it focuses on hardware.
Compatibility: More straightforward for hardware components but limits flexibility in combining with non-reciprocal designs.
Termination: License persists as long as the conditions are met.
Key Differences:
Purpose and Domain: GPL-3.0 is tailored for software, while CERN-OHL-S-2.0 is for hardware designs.
Application: GPL-3.0 addresses software distribution and modification concerns. CERN-OHL-S-2.0 focuses on hardware design, production, and distribution.
Specific Terms: Each license contains terms and conditions specific to its domain (software vs. hardware), reflecting the different concerns and practices in these areas.
Conclusion:
Both GPL-3.0 and CERN-OHL-S-2.0 are strong copyleft licenses but in different domains. GPL-3.0 is ideal for developers who want their software and its derivatives to remain open source. CERN-OHL-S-2.0 suits hardware designers seeking to ensure that their designs and any derivatives stay open source. The choice between these licenses depends on whether the project is software or hardware-focused and the desired level of control over derivatives.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. May or may not be a problem, but there is no hardware-specific license on the project.
Describe the solution you'd like Consider adding something like the CERN OHL-S-2.0 license. This would add a license similar to GPL-3.0 but specifically for the hardware in the project
Describe alternatives you've considered There are not really any other licenses geared towards hardware that are similar to GPL-3.0 other than CERN OHL-S-2.0
Additional context https://opensource.org/license/cern-ohl-s/
Example repo with 2 licenses (and how GitHub can easily show multiple licenses) https://github.com/MasonStooksbury/Hex-Clock
Quick overview of each
GPL-3.0 (Software License)
Type: Designed specifically for software.Copyleft: Strong. Requires that derivative works of the licensed software are also distributed under the GPL.Distribution: Any distribution of the software, modified or not, must include the source code.Patent License: Provides an express grant of patent rights from contributors to users.Tivoization: Prevents "Tivoization," where hardware restricts software modifications.Compatibility: Can be complex when integrating with non-GPL software.Termination: Automatic license termination upon non-compliance, but allows for remedy.CERN-OHL-S-2.0 (Hardware License)
Type: Specifically for hardware designs.Copyleft: Strongly reciprocal. Requires that modifications/derivatives of the design are distributed under the same license.Distribution: Requires the distribution of all original and modified design files.Patent License: Includes clauses on patent licensing.Tivoization: Not applicable, as it focuses on hardware.Compatibility: More straightforward for hardware components but limits flexibility in combining with non-reciprocal designs.Termination: License persists as long as the conditions are met.Key Differences:
Purpose and Domain: GPL-3.0 is tailored for software, while CERN-OHL-S-2.0 is for hardware designs.Application: GPL-3.0 addresses software distribution and modification concerns. CERN-OHL-S-2.0 focuses on hardware design, production, and distribution.Specific Terms: Each license contains terms and conditions specific to its domain (software vs. hardware), reflecting the different concerns and practices in these areas.Conclusion:
Both GPL-3.0 and CERN-OHL-S-2.0 are strong copyleft licenses but in different domains. GPL-3.0 is ideal for developers who want their software and its derivatives to remain open source. CERN-OHL-S-2.0 suits hardware designers seeking to ensure that their designs and any derivatives stay open source. The choice between these licenses depends on whether the project is software or hardware-focused and the desired level of control over derivatives.