开云体育

edy555,

In saying this, I am not saying you have done anything wrong. I think you
have done a great service creating the NanoVNA and many are enjoying the
fruits of your work.

However, this situation points out the utility of open-source licenses. To
the extent that any of these legal mechanisms are enforceable, you can
choose a license for your hardware and software that suits your wishes as
to how you intend your work to be used.

I looked at the NanoVNA and decided not to use any materials from it and
build my own precisely because the license of the NanoVNA is ambiguous. I
have my own VNA design () with its own
software and hardware, licensed specifically under the Creative Commons and
zlib license because it is my wishes that the design be sold commercially
as a benefit to the community. Because I am a citizen of the USA, I have
to be mindful of your intellectual property rights. You decided to limit
your design to being available as a kit that you distribute and that is
your choice. If that is what you intend, you should state it clearly, so
that least those who are using the work know they are using it in a manner
not in accordance with your wishes. However, if you leave your intentions
ambiguous or unstated, you can not expect others to respect them.

I am unfamiliar with Japanese law, but under American law, unless you have
registered the name NanoVNA as a trademark, others can use it freely. I
would personally not use for something that is not the NanoVNA device as
you designed it, but that is my choice. There are many choices for names
and I do not see why all of these variants and redesigns must have the name
NanoVNA. I think it is reasonable to ask that others who create their own
VNAs name them differently to avoid confusion.

Best regards,
Daniel Marks
KW4TI