[OpenDesign] question on the definition scope

[Rob Myers]

On 11/14/2012 05:00 PM, Jorge Toledo wrote:
>
> I agree with Tom and Peter about the important difference between
> Intellectual Property (copyright) and Industrial Property (patents).

WIPO define Industrial Property as a sub-category of Intellectual 
Property, alongside Copyright:

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

> An interesting thing to bear in mind is that "freedom" and "openness"
> don't mean the same, and that they can be applied in a different way at
 > different parts of the design process.

"Open Source" was a deliberately corporate friendly re-branding of Free 
Software. To the extent that it is meaningful it does mean the same 
thing, its name just emphasises the means rather than the end.

>     For example, in graphic design I could share a FINISHED artwork (in
>     raster format, etc.) with a CC license, which would make it more or
>     less "free". But that wouldn't make it "open" as in "open source"

It would make exercising your *freedom* to modify it *impractical*. 
Having a high-quality, structured, free format version of the design 
enables individuals to excercise that freedom effectively.

>     unless I also applied the basic freedoms to the "source" and
>     distributed the SOURCE (files, specifications or score) under
>     similar conditions. So "open design" can be also a matter of degree,
>     not just "open" but also "more or less open".

Openness is atomic. If you are not free to use the work as you wish, it 
is not "Open".

>     Another example: If an industrial designer wanted to free/open the
>     design of a machine, he could release the plans, digital files and
>     specifications (which would be the "source" of the finished object)
>     under CC license, but... would that be enough to keep the design
>     itself free and prevent anyone else from applying a patent on it?
>     Can copyleft secure concept/design/invention openness?

It depends how prior art works. And the GPLv3 includes a patent grant 
where works are covered by patents.

> I also agree with Tom that before getting into messy license-related
> details, we should have a clear view of the different "types" of design
> and the ways they relate to freedom/openness. It could be useful to
> compare them looking at their whole creative process and see where it
> makes more sense to apply both principles.

Individuals should be free to use work/resources with only those 
constraints required to protect that freedom and comply with the law.

Openness is just a means to support this freedom, and so it applies to 
anywhere that design work touches on public life.

Since this is an OKF project there's a good guide to what "Open" means 
in the Open Definition.

- Rob.