# Licensing This project is under **two** licences, because it has to be. | Path | Licence | |---|---| | `Schematics/`, `Documents/`, `README.md` | **CC BY-NC-SA 4.0** — [`LICENSES/CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0.txt`](LICENSES/CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0.txt) | | `Firmware/` | **GPL-2.0-or-later** — [`LICENSES/GPL-2.0.txt`](LICENSES/GPL-2.0.txt) | | `Documents/*.PDF` | Third-party vendor datasheets. Not mine to license. | ## The hardware: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Build one, change it, share what you change — but don't sell it. - **BY** — credit the original. - **NC** — no commercial use. - **SA** — derivatives must carry this same licence. ### Two things to be clear about **This is not "open source" or "open hardware" by the formal definitions.** Both the OSI and OSHWA definitions require permitting commercial use, so a NonCommercial term disqualifies it. That is a deliberate choice here, not an oversight — but it means OSHWA will not certify it, some people will decline to contribute on principle, and it cannot be called open source without being wrong. **"NonCommercial" is genuinely fuzzy.** Creative Commons defines it as use "not primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation." That leaves real ambiguity: a fab house charging to make you a board is fine, a company using it internally is arguable, someone selling assembled units is not. Enforcement is on the copyright holder. ## The firmware: GPL-2.0, and it cannot be otherwise Anything derived from QMK is GPL-2.0, and **the GPL explicitly permits commercial use**. A NonCommercial restriction cannot be added to GPL-derived code — doing so would violate the GPL and make the result undistributable. So the firmware in this repo is GPL-2.0-or-later. Someone may legally sell firmware derived from it. That is not a gap in the licensing; it is the price of building on QMK, and there is no version of this project where it isn't true. The hardware restriction still stands on its own: the thing you would need to *build and sell* is the board, and that is NC.