I think this is a good idea. At the very least it more strongly demonstrates that e-NABLE is NOT a profit driven endeavor. Is there discussion to require any officially sanctioned e-NABLE designs (whatever that means) to be released under a creative-commons, open source, non-commercial license? That might be a stronger constraint than e-NABLE wants. Is there a creative-commons, non-commercial license option that allows for individuals to use and change a model into something new that they can then use for commercial purposes if desired? That would allow for more innovation by people who wish to commercialize some of their work. Indeed, some literature suggests that people will put more value on assistive devices if they are charged a minimal price for them (its what led to this design - https://www.engineeringforchange.org/solutions/product/remotion-knee/). There might be a space for a smaller branch within e-NABLE that works on low-cost commercializable options, with the funds being applied to pursuing some regulatory approval.

I would like to ask all the readers, members, chapters, etc., How many of you have read the Creative Commons Platform of information and understand open source designs? I bet not one in one hundred.

It's complicated: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license#Adding_a_CC_license_to_your_derivative_work

The issue is that every modification of an e-NABLE device or even it's origin is not documented properly. People frequently download and alter files from Thingiverse. I believe the thought that legal exposure in a for profit device is real. Funding through e-NABLE in no way suggests that the devices are for commercial use. That has to be strongly stated.

I support this idea. But on reflection, the reference to "our open source license" is misleading. We don't have a single e-NABLE open-source license, because (1) licensing is the designer's right and responsibility and (2) licensing is complicated.

It would be good to normalize the licensing situation, but it's hard. A virtue of this proposal is that it does not attempt to solve all related problems, but only to distance the e-NABLE "brand" from responsibility for, or explicit endorsement, of commercial activiities involving our designs.

Therefore I suggest that the phrase "our open source license..." be replaced by the phrase "open source licenses for e-NABLE designs typically..."

I think it looks great! I wonder if we should put the call to action at the start of the proposal so that if people don't read all of it at least they get the call to action, i.e. the: " We urge volunteers to avoid such situations and to include this statement in any case:  

"e-NABLE is a volunteer philanthropic effort. We give devices away for free. Our open-source license does not prevent people from charging for devices, but any such commercial activity is done outside of e-NABLE.""

Do you think a reference to licensing is necessary in this policy? for example something like this:

"e-NABLE is a volunteer philanthropic effort in support of an open-source community. We give devices away for free. Any commercial activity regarding device creation is done outside of e-NABLE."

I will leave the exact wording to others, but I definitely agree money needs to be kept out of the equation to the greatest extent possible.