> I always used Creative commons for hardware, is CC in its variations not good enough for hardware?

It's a poor fit. The Creative Commons licenses are primarily designed to be applied to artistic works, like literature, photographs, or music. It's unclear how some parts of those licenses would apply to hardware designs or software programs; indeed, Creative Commons discourages the use of their licenses for software.

CC is geared more toward content/documents. People can and do use it for hardware, but it's not a great fit. In the article they talk about some of the challenges like the building blocks of most electronic designs (i.e. chips, passives and other components) not being things that can realistically be covered in the license. And the fact that a lot of the more interesting 'hardware' actually needs to include both hardware and software (i.e. firmware). I'm sure patents are another area that are at least a bit different with open hardware since it's almost impossible to source a microprocessor, for example, that isn't covered by numerous patents.

If you can't afford an international team of IP lawyers to actually enforce your rights, then your license really isn't anything more than a polite explanation of what people should and shouldn't do with your work.

Creative Commons and its variants excel in this regard - anyone acting in good faith knows exactly what your boundaries are and they're explained clearly on the website.

CERN's OHL, on the other hand, is a little bit more opaque and less well understood.