[gorkish]

> However, any modifications you make must be re-shared under the same licence. By everyone, for everyone.

I’m gonna have to raise the alarm at this remark. There is no reasonable license that would permit enforcing this, that anyone should dare construct a structure bound by such license on their property.

I am all for the idea of an open building system, but get real.

[seabass-labrax]

The important part is at the beginning of the paragraph: "The blueprints of WikiHouse are open source." (emphasis mine)

They aren't telling you what you can and can't do with the house itself.

[gorkish]

You don't really get approval to build things without blueprints in most places. It's "open" but my architect can't draw on it? Naw. CCSA cannot work for such a thing, and anything that's not specificaclly CCSA is under possibly the most overreaching website "terms of use" I've seen in a long time. Good thing at least that junk appears entirely unenforceable.

Build with it at your peril

[seabass-labrax]

What makes you think your architect can't draw on the blueprints?

The designs are available on GitHub:

https://github.com/wikihouseproject/Skylark

They're marked as being made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence[1]. The page also says you have to agree to the 'EULA'[2] of WikiHouse, but these explicitly give precedence to the CC licences:

  All content should be considered to be protected by copyright, with all rights reserved other than those materials that explicitly carry another licence, for example an Open Source or Creative Commons licence. In these cases, that licence shall be clearly marked on or by the relevant media, file or repository.

If you enter into a private agreement with your architect to build upon the WikiHouse designs, the most usual case is that you hold the copyright over the changes to the blueprints which you commissioned. Due to the terms of the CC licence that you agreed to, you must licence your modifications under a compatible licence if you distribute them further. Likewise, if your agreement with the architect gives them title to the copyright, this responsibility is initially on them.

I don't see how this arrangement could be considered objectionable?

[1]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en

[2]: https://www.wikihouse.cc/terms

[gorkish]

> What makes you think your architect can't draw on the blueprints?

Nothing until the architect hands them to someone else in violation of both the CCSA and the EULA which the distributor claim apply to all of the published material. I can’t believe you linked to that nonsense and can’t understand why it might be objectionable.

I’m not saying anyone would come after you or care if you add some different dormers to your cabin or whatever; I just maintain it’s unreasonable to think that you can fold CCSA content into the existing framework of architectural IP and expect that everything is gonna be cool. It’s incompatible.