I’m uncertain if the GPLv3 [1], or something from Creative Commons [3], like the CC-BY-SA [2] license, would be appropriate for open source hardware. I’ve come across the CERN-OHL-S [4], which appears interesting, but I’ve never encountered it in the wild, so I’m wary of it’s apparent obscurity.

References
  1. Type: Webpage. Title: “GNU General Public License”. Publisher: “GNU Operating System”. Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:29Z. URI: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html.
  2. Type: Webpage. Title: “Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International”. Publisher: “Creative Commons”. Accessed: 2025-09-04T21:30Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en.
  3. Type: Webpage. Title: “About CC Licenses”. Publisher: “Creative Commons”. Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:31Z. URI: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/.
  4. Type: Text. Title: “CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 - Strongly Reciprocal”. Publisher: “CERN”. Accessed: 2025-04-09T21:33Z. URI: https://gitlab.com/ohwr/project/cernohl/-/wikis/uploads/819d71bea3458f71fba6cf4fb0f2de6b/cern_ohl_s_v2.txt.
  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
    6·
    6 days ago

    Hm, I’ve come across a number of statements that the GPL isn’t well suited to hardware [1][2][3], but I’m not well enough versed in IP law to be confident in my understanding or the soundness of their rationale. Directly from the GNU Operating System:

    Any material that can be copyrighted can be licensed under the GPL. GPLv3 can also be used to license materials covered by other copyright-like laws, such as semiconductor masks. So, as an example, you can release a drawing of a physical object or circuit under the GPL.

    In many situations, copyright does not cover making physical hardware from a drawing. In these situations, your license for the drawing simply can’t exert any control over making or selling physical hardware, regardless of the license you use. When copyright does cover making hardware, for instance with IC masks, the GPL handles that case in a useful way. [4]

    I’m not really sure.

    References
    1. Type: Comment. Author: “K900_” (“u/K900_”). Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: “Can everything be GPL”. Author: “cyfyff” (“u/cyfyff”). Publisher: [“Reddit”. “r/linux”]. Published: 2019-05-29T04:50:43.079Z. URI: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/buaffg/can_everything_be_gpl/.]. Published: 2019-05-29T04:53:55.513Z. Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:37Z. URI: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/buaffg/comment/ep97hmd/.

      […] The GPL is also a terrible license for hardware IP (see Intel/ARM), for many reasons […]

    2. Type: Comment. Author: “bobc”. Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: “Using the (L)GPL as an open-source hardware license?”. Author: “mondalaci”. Publisher: “KiCad INFO”. Published: 2015-12-23T18:41:37Z. URI: https://forum.kicad.info/t/using-the-l-gpl-as-an-open-source-hardware-license/1925/1.]. Published: 2015-12-23T10:05:03.944Z. Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:42Z. URI: https://forum.kicad.info/t/using-the-l-gpl-as-an-open-source-hardware-license/1925/2.

      […] In a nutshell, GPL (and all other software licenses) rely on software being something that can be subject to copyright. In general hardware can not be copyrighted, because copyright is only granted to creative or artistic works, but with some weird exceptions like software, IC masks, yacht designs (!). “Useful articles or utility works” are not generally subject to copyright, but some powerful industrial lobbies got some concessions, as otherwise a software “work” would not be protected under IP laws, although specific software algorithms can be patented. […] tldr; use GPL or LGPL, CC-BY-SA, MIT, etc as you like, as a statement of intent, but realise they have little legal teeth. Other OSHW oriented licenses are equally ineffective to protect or control the use of electronic or hardware designs.

    3. Type: Post. Title: “Using GPL for hardware is a bad idea”. Author: "BeagleFury ". Publisher: “RepRap”. Published: 2010-03-29T1500. Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:46Z. URI: https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?33,40874.

      […] This in my opinion is a critical flaw… If you want the hardware to be open, first and foremost, you need a license that actually covers hardware. I’m not sure why do people cling to GPL when it does not cover hardware components, (If you search for GPL hardware, one of the top items will be Richard Stahlman saying this same thing – GPL and hardware do not make sense.) […]

    4. Type: Webpage>Text. Title: “Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses”. Publisher: “GNU Operating System”. Accessed: 2025-09-04T22:51Z. URI: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLHardware. Location: §“Can I use the GPL to license hardware?”.