| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.12.03 11:22l 168 Lines 7071 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2517-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 16, 10/10
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<ZL2TZE<VK4TRS<
ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 031219/0843Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14923 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2517-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:37:36 -0500
X-Message-Number: 55
Whatever, what was being discussed (see title) was open source licensing. Of
course, as I already mentioned, not publishing source is always an option.
Byon never (to my knowledge) published his source. He did however distribute
the HEX file for his firmware, in the clear, on his website. Not sure if the
end result was an oversight or an actual IP violation. I no longer see it on
his web site but it can still be had on the internet with a quick google
search.
As we apparently have agreed to disagree, may I ask what perspective your
comments on this subject have come from? As I already shared with you, mine
where from the perspective of a small business owner.
Thanks
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 12/16/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PCsat TXD
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:54:48 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 56
21 Stations copied on the 0050z PCsat pass just now...
PCsat is set to only 100ms of TXDelay. It works OK with my kenwoods. Lemme
know if it is too short for your TNC/Radio.
We run short TXD to conserve TX power... If you hear an immediate packet
after your transmitted packet, but dont copy it, then it could be our TXD
is too short for you...
We are also downlinking a STATUS and BULLETIN on 144.39 over the USA for
terrestrial mobiles once a minute or so..
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:07:45 -0500
X-Message-Number: 57
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:34:43 -0500, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
>You're right that a PCB isn't a derivative work of a schematic, and
>that the copyright holder of the schematic can't stop someone from
>laying out a PCB board based on that schematic. I'm not sure I
>follow the last part of this paragraph, though. If you're saying
>two people could independently create PCBs from the same schematic
>without either being subject to the other, that's right.
I said that, but I also said the next thing as well.
> If you're
>saying the the purpose of a PCB would change the copyright status, I
>don't agree -- how the board is created or its purpose isn't
>(usually) relevant to the copyright discussion.
By purpose, I meant the technical specifications of it. Lets say I want to
create a dirt cheap PCB without regards to anything else. I create a single
sided board, and use wire jumpers to interconnect things when a trace won't
work. Now, lets say I want to create a PCB that will pass FCC testing. I use
a 4 layer PCB, am careful with my ground planes and follow the many rules for
creating a low EMI/RFI board. Clearly, the "artistic content' on both boards
is dramatically different. That is what I was suggesting and how each could
hold a copyright independent of each other.
>Good question about the autoroute button. The answer is that the
>level of creativity required for copyright is very low, and there's
>no requirement that a human being exercise that creativity
>-- machine generated code (or PCB layouts) is as much subject to
>protection as hand-tweaked stuff.
Interesting case law, if any exists. I can see the lawsuite of router vs.
router. Your router copied my router. My reading of the law says it is human
creativity, not machine creativity, but I'll take your word the courts are
attributing creativity to machines now. Stranger things have happened,
although I think the creativity would be attributed to the author of the
autorouter, and not the person who pushed the button (or computer it was run
on). Or is this some bizzare application of "work for hire"?
So, with your definition, using an autorouter, my only creativity is defining
the board size and setting the design rules. That is quite a low bar, and
also a low bar to circumvent for a copyright to be of value.
>>But back to the point, are you saying that someone could NOT
>>legally get on EBAY and sell the TNCX if it was was under GPL, or
>>are you saying they could (with no recourse)? Lets say they don't
>>include the schematic and change the PCB (which is based on a
>>different circuit, and hence not covered under he SCPA).
>Well, there are a couple of things here. First, and I think most
>important, the GPL or any other license doesn't have anything to do
>with schematics or PCBs. When you buy a magazine or book that
>includes a schematic, unless there are very special circumstances in
>place, there's no license involved -- plain copyright law governs
>and a thing called the "first sale doctrine" means that the
>copyright holder has no control over a copy of the work after that
>work has been sold. If John publishes the schematic of the TNCX in
>a magazine, he can't use a license to stop me from creating my own
>PCB layout from that schematic.
But that was exactly my point. He has -no- protection under copyright law on
the hardware, hence that coupled with a GPL on the firmware source would open
the floodgates to legitimate copycat versions appearing on Ebay.
>The firmware in the PIC is another matter -- that's where the GPL or
>other license applies and the author can control the terms under
>which the code can be used or further distributed. It's to software
>that this whole discussion applies, and not to hardware.
Right, and that was the gist of this thread. Someone brought up an example of
a bad thing happening to the first tinitrak, someone in South America selling
them outright on Ebay and someone wanting to avoid this happening to them.
Clearly, anyone can break the law, but as I understand GPL, and your
description of copyrights and circuit diagrams, one could clone such a
hardware device, and sell it on outright EBAY without any violation of law or
license.
This is exactly what the person was trying to avoid.
BTW, as a side note, Ebay does take the DMCA seriously, and it is incredibly
easy to invoke, so that might be another protection folks could use if they
are getting copycats in violation of license agreements on EBAY. Byon should
be able to shut down the copycats, at least on EBAY, if he invokes the DMCA.
See:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/confidence/programs-vero-ov.html
Regards,
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: John Ackermann N8UR <jra@febo.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:26 -0500
X-Message-Number: 58
Jeff, I think we are talking past each other. I haven't disagreed with
your underlying argument about the overall protection you can get on a
combined hardware/software product; I was just addressing a couple of
specific points to avoid them causing confusion in other contexts.
73,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[commercial content deleted]
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
