Unfortunately the Open Source Hardware movement is still in its early formative stages, and is currently focused largely on GPL like licenses, rather than BSD/MIT/Apache style licenses. So the TAPR hardware license will not fit your needs. This website compares a number of software and hardware licenses: http://www.inmojo.com/licenses/ Also, here are a few great resources on the state of open hardware licensing, and the problems of blindly applying software (or creative commons) licenses to hardware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW http://www.ohroadmap.org/licenses There really isn't such a thing a releasing your works into the public domain. The act of saying that you're releasing your works into the public domain has little legal value, but writing that down is, in and of itself, a form of a license, and if you're going to write it yourself, then you might as well specify exactly what you want and write the whole thing yourself. If you want a hardware specific license, then your best bet is to modify the existing gpl-like hardware licenses to remove the derivative (and attribution, if you don't want your users to have to distribute the license and/or your name along with their products) portion from the license. Good luck, let us know how it goes! -Adam On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Vitaliy wrote: > Say you wanted to publish schematics & gerbers, and did not want to restr= ict > their use in any form. Which license would you choose? GPL doesn't fit th= e > bill because it forces whoever uses the files, to publish derivative work= s. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .