One of the things that I learnt not long ago is that patenting is not the same as preventing people to use your ideas, which is one of the main ideas spread among the non-informed-open-source-friendly crew; although that's a possibility, you can use patenting to actually protect your idea from other people that might want to privatize it. That's on the side of patenting. On the licencing side, I believe that most people is used to the software focused licences (GPL, BSD, MIT, etc.), but we must understand that these are not directly transferible to the Fab Lab's world, since we deal mostly with hardware.

That's why I prefered to dig a little on the alternatives and considerations refering to this reality, keeping in mind that sharing is maybe the strongest idea of the Fab Lab's world (at least in my opinion). So I first started looking at the "well known" open source licences, which we know to protect this sharing spirit. From here I moved to check the less know open hardware licences and this article on the TAPR OHL caught my attention, but one of the things that I believe is "delicate" is the documentation constraints it has, that you HAVE to provide proper documentation, which I think we all agree, but in the practice I've seen that's the weakest part when developing projects, specially from the non-professional background (although there are many counter-examples with excelent documentation). Anyways, this wikipedia article compiles many points of view.

To finish, I'd like to share my view on Aaron Schwartz's phylosophy, that is that knowledge is not created, but discovered, and from this that none should prevent other to learn whatever. Also, when I told a relative about my project's idea, he instantly told me to patent it to prevent anyone else to commecialize it ... yet my answer was that I'd rather like it to be freely spread and, in the case that this actually becomes a buisness, let the "product" to be spread (and positioned on the market) while I'm thinking on a newer/better version (free publicity). Anyways, this project was thought to use it myself, not with a commercial goal.

So, to choose a license without the documentation constraints (not that I don't like it), I'd go for the well spread Creative Commons:

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.