Is this really 'open hardware'? The licence has complex and seemingly imprecise restrictions on right-to-sell.
The terms even become more restrictive as the Euro inflates!
The terms even become more restrictive as the Euro inflates!
On the Amiga side every project seems to have licensing which seems to always be defined such that someone thinks they're going to make a successful commercial project out of it Any Day Now. It's strange.
I am also reminded of how Carl Sassenrath thought it would be a good idea to release Rebol under only a proprietary license. The Rebol project, which initially had (IIRC) enormous hype and mindshare during development, tanked, and I think this was large reason why. This is despite the time being just right for a new good scripting language: PHP and Python were just beginning, and Perl was slowly dying.
(Rebol was eventually released under an Open Source license in 2012, when nobody cared about Rebol anymore.)
That said, I don't mean to say that I think the licensing terms of this project are unfair. It seems reasonable if you believe you owe a lot of your work to someone else that you want it to generate some public good that will benefit everybody.
Considering the machines are now ancient and people put a lot of effort in to keeping the hardware relevant, I personally don't mind paying the extra.
The OP have to place certain components for interop based on technical restrictions, other details are bound by the form factor of the components themselves. In theory none of that can be covered by copyright (nor design rights) because it's primarily technical, not artistic in nature.
You should be able to copy nearly all of a circuit board copyright free, only the artistic elements (logos, say) being reserved (and trademarks are probably the main restriction there). Patents can't encumber this.
So, really Commodore's devices _should_ be free to make technical duplicates of. YMMV.
In USA you can likely dump a ROM from an original board, and that might even not be copyright in some jurisdictions under right-to-repair or similar legislation. In UK it's more than likely tortuous without a license to copy to the new board; we don't have Fair Use [and] don't have rights to format shift or backup.
Fair Use can work for commercial goods, but rarely does AFAIK (from reading caselaw).
That's probably one of the very few ways to make a lot of money out of Amiga IP.
No, it's not. That's just not what the term means.
> The restrictions only apply on reselling it for profit, which is an acceptable condition.
I doubt it. That would be enough to disqualify a software licence as Open Source [0], and I imagine it disqualifies a hardware project from being Open Source Hardware too [1] [2].
[0] https://stackoverflow.com/a/8212363/
[1] https://www.oshwa.org/faq/
[2] https://opensource.com/law/15/2/intro-open-hardware-licensin...