| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 19.12.03 11:23l 316 Lines 14563 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2516-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 16, 9/10
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0FHK<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<ZL2TZE<
VK4TRS<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 031219/0843Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14922 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2516-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 18:25:31 -0500
X-Message-Number: 50
John:
While I concede the fact some minor errors here, that does not change the
fact that with a GPL, they stand the great chance of having exactly happen
what they where trying to avoid (the EBAY copy and sale of ripoff devices,
for example, with no legal recourse).
In this case, copyrights offer minimal protection. On one hand you say
copyright protects drawings and derivative works, on the other you state that
a copyright does not protect the circuit (which is what I was saying). A PCB
created from a unique circuit is not a derivative work, and one could even
make the case a PCB created from the exact same circuit can be a unique work,
as a PCB conveys a purpose, and that purpose can actually change depending in
part on the layout techniques employed.
Further, one can make the close analogy of PCB's to the Semiconductor Chip
protection act of 1984, as per definition of mask layers:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ100.pdf
From the act:
"Mask Works are defined in the Act as: a series of related
images, however fixed or encoded (1) having or representing
the predetermined three-dimensional pattern of metallic,
insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed
from the layers of a semiconductor chip product;
and (2) in which series the relation of the images to one
another is that each image has the pattern of the surface
of one form of the semiconductor chip product."
This act was specially created to protect this type of artwork from exact
copying, yet very few law suites have been filed under it. The analogy to
PCB's, if not exact, is very close. Most potential violators found it much
easier to re-do the masks then just to copy them. The same would be true of
making a PCB. It is not the circuit that defines the PCB, it is the layout
that defines the PCB. And that can be drastically different. Even going a
step further, to be copyrighted something must be an original work of
authorship and there must be a certain level of creativity in the expression
of the idea. So if I hit the autoroute button on my favorite PCB program,
and I like what it does, how creative am I?
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).
BTW, looking at both the TiniTrack Schematic/artwork:
http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak/tinytrakii.zip
and the TNCX schematic:
http://john.hansen.net/dcc3.doc
and neither of them are copyright, and while not a direct requirement of
recent copyright law, it is a good idea to do so.
It actually might be a good idea for TAPR to offer a intellectual property
rights seminar at one of the DCC's, since TAPR is involved with many authors
and inventors. Maybe create a boilerplate software license for those in
similar situtions as what is being discussed above. Some basic tips on how to
navigate the PTO site and some basics on copyrights, patents, trademarks and
trade secrets. Over the years, I've seen alot of serious mistakes and this
stuff really is not rocket science.
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 12/16/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:26:08 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 51
APRS ==> PAGER ops:
No reason why we cant take an APRS MESSAGE that arrives at an IGATE and
pop it out onto a local HAM Pager Freq to deliver it to the end user!
Any takers? de WB4APR
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, tvsjr@sprynet.com wrote:
>Actually, VHF and UHF paging has made a bit of a comeback in the eyes of
>Motorola. They recently released the new Advisor 2 VHF and UHF pagers.
>They support POCSAG 512, 1200, and 2400 (the same thing the KPC9612
>transmits...
>... The VHF Range A model covers 143-152MHz, [and costs about] $150+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: OT: Looking for a pager...
From: "tvsjr@sprynet.com" <tvsjr@sprynet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:32:47 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
X-Message-Number: 52
Well, maybe, for a few niches here and there. But one-way alpha service
these days is dirt-cheap (some <$10/mo.), accessible via email (send a page
from APRS via the email gateway - I haven't seen a pager in a long time
that wasn't accessible via email), and has an already-built network that's
better than anything we're likely to get built any time soon.
73,
Terry/N5RSE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: "Sean \\The RIMBoy\\" <sean@rimboy.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:08:17 -0600 (CST)
X-Message-Number: 53
Jeff,
Let's not be dishonest, let's change GPL to BSD license:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>John:
>
>While I concede the fact some minor errors here, that does not change
>the fact that with a *BSD license*, they stand the great chance of
>having exactly happen what they where trying to avoid (the EBAY copy and
>sale of ripoff devices, for example, with no legal recourse).
And to that extent, if it was under a BSD license it would be perfectly
legal according to the terms of the license.
Both licenses (GPL and BSD) put you in the position of being ripped off
one way or the other (if you are to be believed with your previous
statements on the GPL). As others are reporting about Byon, closing the
source has not kept him from apparently being ripped off.
It sounds like no matter what, it's not a winning situation. There's not
a high road. Closing your source creates problems, opening it under GPL
or BSD creates just as many.
Sean...
--
The punk rock will get you if the government don't get you first.
--Old 97's
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC http://www.rimboy.com Your source for the crap you know you need.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: John Ackermann N8UR <jra@febo.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:34:43 -0500
X-Message-Number: 54
--On Tuesday, December 16, 2003 18:25:31 -0500 Jeff King
<jeff@aerodata.net> wrote:
>John:
>
>While I concede the fact some minor errors here, that does not change the
>fact that with a GPL, they stand the great chance of having exactly
>happen what they where trying to avoid (the EBAY copy and sale of ripoff
>devices, for example, with no legal recourse).
I think Jeff and I may be (or have been) talking past each other a bit...
my other message wasn't intended to discuss the GPL at all; it was just
trying to clarify some specific points of copyright law that apply
independently of any licensing.
>In this case, copyrights offer minimal protection. On one hand you say
>copyright protects drawings and derivative works, on the other you state
>that a copyright does not protect the circuit (which is what I was
>saying). A PCB created from a unique circuit is not a derivative work,
>and one could even make the case a PCB created from the exact same
>circuit can be a unique work, as a PCB conveys a purpose, and that
>purpose can actually change depending in part on the layout techniques
>employed.
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. 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.
>Further, one can make the close analogy of PCB's to the Semiconductor
>Chip protection act of 1984, as per definition of mask layers:
>http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ100.pdf
>From the act:
>
>"Mask Works are defined in the Act as: a series of related
>images, however fixed or encoded (1) having or representing
>the predetermined three-dimensional pattern of metallic,
>insulating, or semiconductor material present or removed
>from the layers of a semiconductor chip product;
>and (2) in which series the relation of the images to one
>another is that each image has the pattern of the surface
>of one form of the semiconductor chip product."
>
>This act was specially created to protect this type of artwork from exact
>copying, yet very few law suites have been filed under it. The analogy
>to PCB's, if not exact, is very close. Most potential violators found it
>much easier to re-do the masks then just to copy them. The same would be
>true of making a PCB. It is not the circuit that defines the PCB, it is
>the layout that defines the PCB. And that can be drastically different.
>Even going a step further, to be copyrighted something must be an
>original work of authorship and there must be a certain level of
>creativity in the expression of the idea. So if I hit the autoroute
>button on my favorite PCB program, and I like what it does, how
>creative am I?
I haven't worked much with the Chip Protection Act (my company had a
semiconductor business, but we sold it a bunch of years ago) but my
understanding is that the real reason there have been few suits under the
Act is that technology passed it by -- the type of reverse engineering the
Act was designed to protect ("peeling") isn't feasible with the current
size and complexity of chips.
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.
>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.
Further, if I buy a TNCX, there's nothing that John can do to prevent me
from selling that unit to someone else, from reverse engineering the
circuit from the board, or from creating an independent hardware
implementation of that circuit (though I may need a "clean room" to do it
right). Reverse engineering, so long as you don't violate an intellectual
property right, is perfectly legal.
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.
(Why does a license work here and not for the book/magazine? Because to
run the code you have to make a copy of it in memory, and making a copy
requires permission of the copyright holder. Thus the license which
provides the permission. If you tell me that the PIC runs code from EPROM
without creating a copy in RAM, that might change things.)
(Side note -- the GPL itself expressly *doesn't* govern running a program,
only distributing it. You can run a GPL'd program without accepting the
GPL's terms, but you can't distribute it unless you do.)
Finally, the SCPA simply doesn't have anything to do with PCBs. It's a
limited law that applies only to mask works used in the production of
semiconductors.
>BTW, looking at both the TiniTrack Schematic/artwork:
>http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak/tinytrakii.zip
>and the TNCX schematic:
>http://john.hansen.net/dcc3.doc
>
>and neither of them are copyright, and while not a direct requirement of
>recent copyright law, it is a good idea to do so.
Good point. Since 1978, when the US implemented a new copyright law to
bring us under the international copyright treaties, it's no longer
required to include a copyright notice. But it's always a good idea to
include the notice.
(By the way -- it's not necessary to file a copyright registration, either,
unless you want to bring an infringement lawsuit, and then you can do it
prior to filing the suit. You'll reduce the damages you can collect, but
not the ability to stop the infringer from distributing the pirated copies.)
>It actually might be a good idea for TAPR to offer a intellectual
>property rights seminar at one of the DCC's, since TAPR is involved with
>many authors and inventors. Maybe create a boilerplate software license
>for those in similar situtions as what is being discussed above. Some
>basic tips on how to navigate the PTO site and some basics on
>copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. Over the years, I've
>seen alot of serious mistakes and this stuff really is not rocket
>science.
I'm game on the presentation, but I think a boilerplate license is biting
off a very big chunk.
By the way -- another message asked about TAPR's position re open source.
We strongly support open source and encourage all TAPR projects/products to
adopt open source licenses. But we've made a decision -- at least so far
-- not to mandate this. There are just too many different circumstances
and we don't want to discourage what might be a valuable project because
the author (who did all the hard work...) wants to reserve some rights. We
take a case-by-case view.
73,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
