[Vanhackspace] Proposed change to principles: requiring openness on VHS projects

Fri Aug 28 09:33:53 PDT 2009

I'm happy with the points that have been raised - I don't have much to add.

I like the VHS space for hacking, and at various times I've worked on
the vhs-door project (VHS group project, open sourced license),
vantrash (spawned at a VHS event (SHHH), worked on by VHS members, but
for an external context, released under an open source license),
personal projects (contributions to other open source projects), and
on occasion personal $work projects.

I think what has been discussed here gives me a good frame of
reference for how to think of my projects' relation to VHS.

Luke

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Joe Bowser<bowserj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with this for the most part.  This comes into play when it includes
> future infrastructure like a RepRap or a Laser Cutter.
>
> On another note, things get really messy when things owned by other
> non-member groups are in the space.  For example, Boris Mann and a lot of
> other people who may not want to be members of VHS want to buy a
> CupcakeCNC.  Now, when we discussed CupCake CNC, we agreed that we could
> probably build it ourselves for cheaper than the $750 USD that it costs, and
> we decided to not get one.  So, if a non-member wanted to make a personal
> project on the CupCake CNC which just happens to be stored at VHS (because
> we're friendly to anyone building anything), what does that mean?
>
> I think that it's fine for Personal Projects to be brought into the space by
> non-members for their first night, because that's how things like RepRaps,
> Robot Arms, and other cool stuff gets brought into the space in the first
> place.  I think that it's really a case by case basis, and if someone is
> showing up over and over again, using our tools and not actually
> paying/contributing in any way, we need to have a talk with that person.  It
> hasn't really happened yet, to be honest.
>
> Joe
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Ryan Smith <bigryeguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some great discussion so far.
>>
>> I think we need to make the distinction between personal projects and
>> group projects. Also I think we need to make a distinction for members
>> and non-members as well. Members should be free to work on personal
>> projects in the space, using the infrastructure (wireless, tools,
>> space) and there would be no expectation that you would be open with
>> the project. When you start including other members (asking for
>> advice, gang programming) you need to be clear that what you are doing
>> is a personal project that you may get some benefit from. This gives
>> other people the option of saying that they don't wish to be involved
>> with a personal project.
>>
>> I think that all other activities in the space should be open. I think
>> Derek's suggestion of the use of licenses from
>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses with software is appropriate.
>> Groups should be free to choose the license they wish within those
>> constraints. Projects should also be open in the sense that anyone can
>> become involved with them. Hardware I would like to see covered by
>> some sort of Open Hardware License, but I'm not too familiar with this
>> side of it. Oblig wiki link,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_hardware
>>
>> One thing that personally I have strong feelings about and may be
>> contentious is that non-members should not be working on personal
>> _hardware_ projects at the space and have to be clear if they are
>> working on personal _software_ projects when working with other
>> people. Currently this has little implication, but when we have more
>> tools in the space I think there needs to be a distinction.
>> Non-members should be encouraged to attend VHS, contribute to group
>> projects, learn how to use the tools and become involved with the
>> group. I don't think non-members should be using physical
>> infrastructure for personal hardware projects. I think this is as much
>> a philosophical issue as it is a liability and safety issue.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Richard Sim<richard.a.sim at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm the one who brought this up in the IRC channel several weeks back
>> > when I
>> > was looking into joining VHS.
>> > What defines "VHS infrastructure"? Does that differ significantly from
>> > "anything developed at the space"? While I understand your point about
>> > what
>> > could come down to problems with people making money off of VHS's
>> > servers,
>> > but what about everything else? My primary concern when bringing it up
>> > initially was about what if I worked on a private electronics project at
>> > VHS, and how do the VHS principles force my hand as to what I do with
>> > the
>> > project. I'm talking about doing some soldering, using a scope, printing
>> > a
>> > circuit board to etch, using the wireless, and so on at VHS. All that to
>> > me
>> > is "VHS infrastructure", but I don't think it's the intention of the VHS
>> > principles to mandate that I'd have to open-source the project (nor the
>> > intention of the proposed principle changes, but the wording still makes
>> > it
>> > seem that it does).
>> >
>> > -Richard
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Derek Anderson
>> > <derek at chargedmultimedia.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think that we are going to have to allow alternative licenses to the
>> >> GPL. Not all "OPEN" licenses are compatible with the GPL, which may
>> >> restrict
>> >> our source libraries on projects (ie: what if we want to use Sun or
>> >> AGPL
>> >> licensed code).
>> >>
>> >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses has a list of all the OSI approved
>> >> licenses, and I propose we accept any of those.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Jeff Davis <jeff at textsfornothing.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Our principles[*] currently say that VHS is a "GPL/Creative Commons"
>> >>> space and require that anything developed at the space be released
>> >>> under
>> >>> the GPL or a Creative Commons license.  This came up at tonight's
>> >>> infrastructure meeting, and it was proposed that we change this to say
>> >>> that VHS group projects and projects using VHS infrastructure must be
>> >>> "open," in two senses:
>> >>>
>> >>> (1) Anyone can participate.
>> >>> (2) The project must be released under a free/open source license (not
>> >>> necessarily the GPL).
>> >>>
>> >>> This would mean that if you are running a project on our servers, or
>> >>> doing substantial development work on it using our servers, you'd need
>> >>> to release your code under an open license.  If you're just working on
>> >>> something on your laptop, no such expectation would exist.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> Jeff
>> >>>
>> >>> [*]: http://vancouver.hackspace.ca/doku.php?id=principles
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Vanhackspace mailing list
>> >>> Vanhackspace at lists.uselessdegree.net
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> http://lists.uselessdegree.net/listinfo.cgi/vanhackspace-uselessdegree.net
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Vanhackspace mailing list
>> >> Vanhackspace at lists.uselessdegree.net
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.uselessdegree.net/listinfo.cgi/vanhackspace-uselessdegree.net
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Vanhackspace mailing list
>> > Vanhackspace at lists.uselessdegree.net
>> >
>> > http://lists.uselessdegree.net/listinfo.cgi/vanhackspace-uselessdegree.net
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Vanhackspace mailing list
>> Vanhackspace at lists.uselessdegree.net
>> http://lists.uselessdegree.net/listinfo.cgi/vanhackspace-uselessdegree.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vanhackspace mailing list
> Vanhackspace at lists.uselessdegree.net
> http://lists.uselessdegree.net/listinfo.cgi/vanhackspace-uselessdegree.net
>
>