The document discusses open hardware licensing and ecosystems. It notes that some hardware startups and creators are interested in or committed to open licensing. Motivations for open licensing include positive branding, network effects from larger install bases, and greater impact. However, concerns include the difficulty of accessing patented parts and materials affordably as well as liability issues from selling physical products. The document considers different business models and the implications for open source licenses in hardware.

1. A Peek Into Open Hardware:
Motivations, Licensing and
Ecosystem
Tomoaki Watanabe
CC Japan/ Keio U.

2. About:
Me: CC Japan/ Academic/ ex-Wikimedian/ OK
Japan/ some other things open
Project:
Center of Innovation for the creation of
planetary fab society to expand creativity of
citizens by connecting sensibilities and digital
fabrication. (Led by Keio U.)

3. # of people/entities spoken so far
Hardware start-ups…2
Other creators in hardware/ fab …2
Associated service providers … 1
Interested in/ committed to/ have tried open
licensing of hardware

4. Motivations and perceived values
Branding
- positive image associated with open source
- alignment with community values
- wider reach
Network effects
- greater install base, leading to more associated services,
hardware, or data, leading to additional values
Impact
- greater use and impact
Experiment
- learning how to be open
#no big surprise here

5. Biz Models
- Sell hardware
- Sell a part essential for the hardware
- Give away hardware data, and sell something else
-- associated service
-- custom-made hardware
-- next gen. based on data collected
- See what happens/ not sure what’s best
# many were not clear on this

6. Concerns: not open enough
- Patent is so nationalized and expensive
- Parts and materials not accessible/ cheap/
free of charge, making “creation” difficult
- Without proper materials information, data
alone is not enough.
Therefore, some think, open licensing is not
worrying as much.

7. Concerns: Want more control
- Product liabilities arising from sales and use.
(product liability issues not avoidable when
providing physical products)
- Shape data openly licensed or not, 3D scanners
can produce data for replicating the shape of
an object.
- Legal but controversial use: military, indecent,
or other use. (covering reputation risk)
- RFID chip for embed license info& credits?

8. Implications for open licenses
CC BY/ BY-SA/ 0 serving as default open licenses &tools for
now
1. Need for alternative: moderate level
2. Strong point: open fab data is insufficient,
cf. open object code/ open data in proprietary format
3. Some biz have less apprehension about open licensing (b/c
they know it is not effective)
OD 5-star model (extra-license solution) or
OSS GPL model (intra-license solution)?
Cots/ benefits not immediately clear

9. License
License: Creative Commons BY 4.0. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>
Additional information to help your use of this work: “copyright notice,” “a notice that
refers to the disclaimer of warranties,” and “a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed
Material” do not exist for this work. Creator is Tomoaki Watanabe
Given the above, the attribution may look like this:
“By Tomoaki Watanabe
License: Creative Commons BY 4.0. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>”
Or this, in case of Adapted Material:
“This work is based partly on a slide set by Tomoaki Watanabe. The work had the
following license notice.
License: Creative Commons BY 4.0. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>”