Last month the Engelberg Center released Unbalanced Interests: How the § 1201 Process Ate Itself (also hosted on this site). The report is a deep dive into the triennial § 1201 process, which is something of a marquee event in copyright policy circles, although not necessarily a particularly loved one. In the context of this blog, it is the thing that precipitates the unlocking 3D printers posts every three years.

A dispute about a python library called chardet may be an early rumble of an earthquake in the world of open source software (OSS) and intellectual property law. The incident exposes the potential fragility of the legal model underpinning OSS in the Large Language Model era. Suddenly, open source hardware (OSHW)’s experience creating open works without comprehensive IP protections could have many lessons for OSS.

This post is a handy reference for the technical reasons why requiring 3D printers to screen for gun parts is not an effective way to reduce guns or gun violence. I am publishing it on the occasion of both New York and Washington State introducing bills to require this type of screening. In addition to a topic that I have been researching for over a decade, the question of how to know if a 3D printer is printing a gun part is something I spent a lot of time working on while overseeing trust and safety at a large 3D printing service provider.

This post was originally going to be a legal analysis of the Open Community License released by the 3D printer company Prusa Labs right before Christmas. That analysis may still come. (update 3/19/26: It does not need to come. Kyle E. Mitchell did his trademark Line by Line analysis of the license so check it out.)

Earlier this month, Arduino announced a new Arduino Uno Q board as part of its acquisition by Qualcomm. Is this new board open source? It is kind of hard to say, which is exactly why the OSHWA Open Source Hardware Certification exists.