I struggled with the NC distinction and gave up on it. I recommend either just going truly open source and dropping the NC altogether or dont release it as open source at all. It’s a gentle and agreement, not an enforceable law.
Even if it’s closed source, it’s legal to reverse engineer things for your own use or to even sell reverse engineered things if not protected by patents. Tesla uses obscurity as a protection for IP… They don’t file patents on things they want to keep to themselves and they also don’t open source such things. I like this approach. It works better with software vs hardware. If you sell a physical thing not protected by parents, it can be copied.
Its the same as me sharing the STL files of my designs vs the CAD files. Sharing an STL file is not opensource but it is shared with so others may use it within the scope of personal use, thus NC. The feeling is this, if you want to make one of my printers for yourself I couldn’t be happier, if you then decide wow I should make 100 of them and sell them, that’s taking advantage.
@Michael_Scholtz When you’ve distributed your STL file for an item with practical use, for example a part for a printer, you do not enjoy copyright protection from those that choose to print and sell the item depicted in your file. (though they can not legally sell the actual file without your permission/license) While you may not like it, current law doesn’t support your position with regards to the manufacture of the durable object. I’m legally able to load your file into a CAM and make it or measure it in a modeler and make it from that. It’s the same as reverse engineering.
This is different than Louise’s case where people where printing her art and selling it. The art was protected. Your parts not so much.