Legal Practices of DIDIY Hardware Technologies

From P2P Foundation
Revision as of 12:06, 10 January 2019 by Asimong (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Report: LEGAL PRACTICES OF DiDIY HARDWARE TECHNOLOGIES.

URL = http://www.didiy.eu/public/deliverables/didiy-d6.3-1.0-pub.pdf

Description

From the Executive Summary:

"We select a series of cases that we consider as good or inspiring practices that can be useful or inspiring for other projects to learn from. We place the legal aspects in a broader perspective of DiDIY communities seeking for a sustainable organising model, or an “open business model”. Our framework has seven main pillars, including licensing, revenue models, production models, governance, community co-creation, external regulatory framework and impact. We look at some cases that provide a platform for the sharing of knowledge and designs, projects that produce machines and projects that produce open (source hardware) designs. Last but not least we also present some cases which run a community network and others that make use of them, collaboratively producing and using open data as a data commons. All cases are examples of DiDIY that maximise the potential for replication, reuse and modification."


From the introduction:

"DiDIY is a socio-technical phenomenon: for it to thrive we need to take into account a multidisciplinary approach. When analysing legal practices of technological projects, we should not only look at the licensing and other legal aspects, but place it in a larger context. We suggest to take an integral view, considering that this phenomenon is part of a larger socio-economic change, or transition. What is particularly relevant is to see inspiring practices of projects and communities that apparently are pioneering this recent phenomenon and successfully so to some extent. We’ll want to know how come they can share knowledge under open or even free licenses while still being able to sustain the costs related to the project. Such projects run the risk of being replicated (forked). How come the community is not walking away to some other (forked) project? How does the community influence strategic decisions, or in other words: what governance model do they follow? These and other questions we try to answer for each case, in a structured set of case studies."


Contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................5 2. A framework for analysing Open, Commons-oriented Business Models........................................6

3. Case Studies....................................................................................................................................10

  • 3.1 Case: Arduino..................................................................................................................................11
  • 3.2 Case: Raspberry Pi.............................................................................................................................14
  • 3.3 Case: C.H.I.P..................................................................................................................................16
  • 3.4 Case: RepRap...................................................................................................................................18
  • 3.5 Case: RepRap Barcelona / BCN 3D Technologies.................................................................................21
  • 3.6 Case: RepRap – Lulzbot........................................................................................................................23
  • 3.7 Case: GoodEnoughCNC........................................................................................................................26
  • 3.8 Case: SketchChair..................................................................................................................................29
  • 3.9 Case: OpenDesk....................................................................................................................................31
  • 3.10 Case: Wikihouse..................................................................................................................................33
  • 3.11 Case: Guifi.net...............................................................................................................................34
  • 3.12 Case: The Things Network..................................................................................................................37
  • 3.13 Case: Flood Network...........................................................................................................................39
  • 3.14 Case: OpenTrons..................................................................................................................................41

4. Conclusions and recommendations.