Architectural blueprints have been explicitly covered by copyright in the US since 1990, but were likely implicitly covered before then.
He could always provide an open-source license before claiming that he is “open sourcing” his designs. You could always check for a license before claiming that something is open-source. Putting the onus on people after the fact to make those previous claims true doesn’t make any sense.
Architectural blueprints have been explicitly covered by copyright in the US since 1990, but were likely implicitly covered before then.
He could always provide an open-source license before claiming that he is “open sourcing” his designs. You could always check for a license before claiming that something is open-source. Putting the onus on people after the fact to make those previous claims true doesn’t make any sense.