Open Hardware helps build communities

While researching new ways of funding 3D printer development, I came not only across the CERN OHL, but also across a group of amateur radio operators, TAPR. Apparently, this group is just as active about their radios as we're about our printers.

Just last sunday there was an Open Hardware Workshop in San Francisco, USA: [www.ohwr.org]

Linked on this page is an interesting video about Open Hardware licencing. I'm currently listening to it. A very interesting note is: "Open Hardware helps build communities aroung projects". Comparing this sentence to RepRap, where apparently everyone goes away to open a shop, a really distinct experience!

Video, 30 minutes, 127 MB(!): [www.ohwr.org]
Slides shown in the Video, still 14 MB: [www.ohwr.org]

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Comparing this sentence to RepRap, where
> apparently everyone goes away to open a shop, a
> really distinct experience!

Considering radio hardware has been around for nearly 100 years and 3d printing for nearly 30, I think we have a ways to go before this technology is ubiquitous enough to match that of radio.

SheldonE Wrote:

> Considering radio hardware has been around for
> nearly 100 years and 3d printing for nearly 30, I
> think we have a ways to go before this technology
> is ubiquitous enough to match that of radio.

I can see a lot of parallels, in the early days of radio and television, most people could not afford to buy
them, so lots would build them, but who does that now, apart from enthusiasts, the same will happen to
3Dprinting, they will probably become a consumer item like a coffee maker or smartphone, how many people make them.

---

Random Precision

I dont think the "hardware" as a concept is to blame, either its radio or cnc or else. The 3D printers are promoted specifically as a "machine that makes another copies by itself". It gives the impression that it just copies itself very easily, coz they forgot to make note like "a ton of human labor required in the process". So the start impression of everyone must something like buy one, put it to replicate and there it is the golden goose. Its like "gold fever" but with a printer. Poor guys, by the time they get to have a better understanding of the effort it takes, its already too late for them

So for the later on separation of ppls, i would rather blame ... the marketing. It sort of creates some image and expectations and rest of ppls actions are downhill from there. Ofc, just an opinion.

Quote
NoobMan
a "machine that makes another copies by itself".

Without this - already achievable, but for the moment at an inaccessible cost - goal, the RepRap movement wouldn't have attract so many talented and enthusiastic participants to achieve the faster than usual progress made to date. My two printers purchased this year are already both out of date...

Quote
NoobMan
It gives the impression that it just copies itself very easily, coz they forgot to make note like "a ton of human labor required in the process".

...but not for long.

The general discussion of open hardware and community is an interesting concept. I worked for some years on an open hardware product (Chumby) that unfortunately wasn't successful enough commercially to keep the company going. One of the guys I worked with (bunnie) is working on an open hardware laptop (Novena) partly because he wants something he can hack to integrate oscilloscope functions ( [www.bunniestudios.com] ).

There's a really interesting equation on society, community, economics and technology that I haven't really figured out but part of it boils down to human nature driving economics: we do what we have to in order to survive (usually requires making money) and we try to get the things we want with what we have (or sometimes with what we don't have).

I agree with SheldonE's comment re: maturity - amateur radio has evolved but at the core there is still a strong hobbyist motivation. I see people who put hundreds of hours basically doing product development only to watch someone else start producing and selling it. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing, because every time I've been involved in open hardware it seems to not quite fit with mainstream supply and demand economics.

In open source software, there are many different models (including orphaned products that get contributed, like Blender; funded products; etc) but much of the open source software people will use every day involves hundreds of thousands of hours of development time, and unless you've done software development it can be hard to appreciate the massive amount of time that goes into making stable software.

The economics of software development are quite different, though; the tools are cheap (or free) and the only thing needed is time. At one point I started an open source project for a hobby I enjoyed and could afford (paper modelling) since I was employed but relatively destitute. I never thought of this as a product people would pay money for, and certainly had no desire to get involved in the type of hassles that come from supporting free software (although I love to hear about defects I can reproduce and fix).

Herein lies part of the problem: someone develops something on their own uncompensated time that undergoes hundreds or thousands of hours of refinement but no matter how much we get for free it's human nature to ask for more or complain about the 2% that doesn't work.

It's an interesting topic and my apologies for the long rambling post but I do feel a sense of community exists - it's just hard to nail down WHERE it exists. I'm grateful to those who have put huge amounts of time into developing the open source hardware and software I use, and my way of participating in community is by contributing, whether it's design, development, or whatever. There's a steep curve getting up to speed but I've enjoyed doing it and look forward to continuing. At the same time I have to balance doing things that I enjoy with the need to get a paycheck - I loved working at Chumby and I worked much harder than I was required to but I definitely got paid, otherwise I could not have done it.

To sum up John Ackermanns' speech, he considers neither the GPL nor Creative Commons licences nor similar ones to be suitable, because these are all based on copyright. Copyright doesn't protect the idea, just the expression of an idea.

He ruled out patents for their price and trademarking for the difficult application to small projects. Trademarking would be a reasonable choice for an entire set of projects, though.

As copyright doesn't work, he considers plain contracts to be the way to go. Founded on the same law fundament as non-disclousure agreements (NDAs), but with different rules, of course. One of the more important rules is immunity to patents. Neither party should be allowed to claim patent infringement against any other party using the contract.

According to him, the CERN OHL as well as the TAPR OHL reflect these goals well. He also mentioned the Solderpad Licence, but wasn't too sure about wether it works well.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Yeah, these issues have been discussed widely, on CERN OHL and elsewhere.

Unfortanately, I don't think contract is the way to go either. For example, it is not transferable and not binding on third-parties. Every user would need to make a contract with the originator. Contract law varies between countries. Usually to form a contract needs a consideration, ie. something of value to change hands, usually money. If there is no consideration, then there can be no damages awarded for breach of contract because it was never worth anything. If someone uses the stuff without agreeing to the contract, there is nothing that can be done; there is no contract. The idea of "open contracts" that are entered merely by use of an object have zero legal merit, IMO. So legally contract law does not seem useful or even applicable.

To be binding both parties must be aware of the contract and agree to it. That probably needs to be recorded as well. The legality of "shrinkwrap" or "clickwrap" licences is highly dubious, AFAIK it has never been properly tested. Although US courts have made some funny interpretations of the first-sale doctrine.

The OHL avoids physical design and relates to copyright of source materials it appears, the TAPR has some provisions for hardware designs but I'm not convinced of it's legal robustness. I think it has yet to be tested.

Open Source Software licences rely on copyright law, which is different to most other forms of IP in that Copyright is a right automatically granted to the author, and does not need to be claimed as patents, trademarks etc do. The reason Copyright applies to software is also a quirk, since it is not normal to grant Copyright to utility works, it generally applies only to artistic works. We can thank the multi-billion dollar US software industry for lobbying law makers and ensuring copyright was extended to software in order to protect their industry.

So unfortunately there appear to be no avenues left for Open Source Hardware, other than what Copyright allows, in order to prevent others copying hardware designs, and then claiming them as their own property. I think it would require some new laws to be globally enacted, that seems unlikely.

"Gentleman's agreements" are really a waste of time. Unenforceable, and will be ignored. Plus people will go round claiming things regardless of merit, for example the guy who claims to have rights on the 3d printed cheeseburger. Anyone printing cheeseburgers must pay him dues.

Quote

For example, it is not transferable and not binding on third-parties.

You can make a contract which obliges the contractor to make the very same contract with the next party? If I understood this speech correctly, that's how both OHLs work. John Ackermann is a lawyer by profession, so I guess he wouldn't recommend these licences if they had such fundamental issues.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Maybe when this license thing is resolved and the community agree on a way forward, if anyone
abuses the license they will be black balled, and the fear of this may be enough, otherwise if lawyers get involved the cost of defending would need an overseeing organisation which in turn would need funding.

Example, fur coats were every womans dream, until the cruelty campainers made it moraly unacceptable
to wear one, few women now wear fur, no law or license forbids it, but for many women it would not feel right.

---

Random Precision

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> To be binding both parties must be aware of the
> contract and agree to it. That probably needs to
> be recorded as well. The legality of "shrinkwrap"
> or "clickwrap" licences is highly dubious, AFAIK
> it has never been properly tested. Although US
> courts have made some funny interpretations of the
> first-sale doctrine.

In the last few years shrink wrap licensing has been upheld by appeal to the Ninth Circuit and found to be valid and enforceable. It's a legal precedent that that if licensed accordingly the software is not owned but licensed and as such does not fall under the first sale doctrine.

Quote
Ninth Circuit- Vernor v. Autodesk (emphasis mine)

Autodesk retained title to the software and imposed significant transfer restrictions: it stated that the license is nontransferable, the software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk’s written consent, and the software could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. The SLA also imposed use restrictions against the use of the software outside the Western Hemisphere and against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, removing any proprietary marks from the software or documentation, or defeating any copy protection device. Furthermore, the SLA provided for termination of the license upon the licensee’s unauthorized copying or failure to comply with other license restrictions. Thus, because Autodesk reserved title to Release 14 copies and imposed significant transfer and use restrictions, we conclude that its customers are licensees of their copies of Release 14 rather than owners.

CTA was a licensee rather than an 'owner of a particular copy' of Release 14, and it was not entitled to resell its Release 14 copies to Vernor under the first sale doctrine. 17 U.S.C. § 109(a). Therefore, Vernor did not receive title to the copies from CTA and accordingly could not pass ownership on to others. Both CTA’s and Vernor’s sales infringed Autodesk’s exclusive right to distribute copies of its work. Id. § 106(3).

While there have been conflicting rulings in the past, under US law this is currently the precedent.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can make a contract which obliges the
> contractor to make the very same contract with the
> next party? If I understood this speech correctly,
> that's how both OHLs work. John Ackermann is a
> lawyer by profession, so I guess he wouldn't
> recommend these licences if they had such
> fundamental issues.

A contract is only enforceable between the parties that executed the agreement. For example if party A and party B make a contract which stipulates that party B included contract provisions with the fab house, in this case party C the respective agreements would be between parties A and B for the initial contract and parties B and C for the manufacturing contract. As such party A would have no standing to bring suit against party C unless it was a violation of established law, copyright, patent, trademark, etc, whcih they would have regardless of any contract. Party B would have to commence action against party C and would have to have been designated whatever rights to the product to have standing in order to sucessfully even bring the suit to party C. IOW, from a practical standpoint nothing is likely to happen. A can't bring suit against C and B wouldn't have standing to bring suit on C on behalf of A's IP.

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote

For example, it is not transferable and not
> binding on third-parties.

>
> You can make a contract which obliges the
> contractor to make the very same contract with the
> next party?

Yes, but if he doesn't, you can only act against him, not the third party. And what happens if a third party gets hold of the product without the agreement? They can use it without following any license terms. The chain is broken.

> If I understood this speech correctly,
> that's how both OHLs work. John Ackermann is a
> lawyer by profession, so I guess he wouldn't
> recommend these licences if they had such
> fundamental issues.

Lawyers tend to tell what they want the law to be, rather than what the law actually is, and they have a tendency to develop a view of the law that matches the wishes of their client. Since Ackermann wrote the OHL for TAPR, I think his view reflects that. I find Ackermann's analysis of copyright somewhat rosy, and I am sure in places actually wrong. Ref [www.tapr.org] He suggests that PCB layout is protected by copyright because it has creative elements. He shoots himself in the foot by saying the requirement is not to have tracks cross, which is a functional requirement, so clearly it is utility not artistic. He also suggests that Gerber files can be literary works, even if autogenerated. He is so far off the mark there.

I'm therefore dubious about his general approach. I think for an independent view I would refer to [www.ifosslr.org] Andrew Katz is also a lawyer, and he specialises in IP.

vegasloki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bobc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > To be binding both parties must be aware of the
> > contract and agree to it. That probably needs
> to
> > be recorded as well. The legality of
> "shrinkwrap"
> > or "clickwrap" licences is highly dubious,
> AFAIK
> > it has never been properly tested. Although US
> > courts have made some funny interpretations of
> the
> > first-sale doctrine.
>
> In the last few years shrink wrap licensing has
> been upheld by appeal to the Ninth Circuit and
> found to be valid and enforceable. It's a legal
> precedent that that if licensed accordingly the
> software is not owned but licensed and as such
> does not fall under the first sale doctrine.
>
>

Quote
Ninth Circuit- Vernor v. Autodesk
> (emphasis mine)
>
> Autodesk retained title to the software and
> imposed significant transfer restrictions: it
> stated that the license is nontransferable, the
> software could not be transferred or leased
> without Autodesk’s written consent, and the
> software could not be transferred outside the
> Western Hemisphere. The SLA also imposed use
> restrictions against the use of the software
> outside the Western Hemisphere and against
> modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the
> software, removing any proprietary marks from the
> software or documentation, or defeating any copy
> protection device. Furthermore, the SLA provided
> for termination of the license upon the
> licensee’s unauthorized copying or failure to
> comply with other license restrictions. Thus,
> because Autodesk reserved title to Release 14
> copies and imposed significant transfer and use
> restrictions, we conclude that its customers are
> licensees of their copies of Release 14 rather
> than owners.
>
> CTA was a licensee rather than an 'owner of a
> particular copy' of Release 14, and it was not
> entitled to resell its Release 14 copies to Vernor
> under the first sale doctrine. 17 U.S.C. §
> 109(a). Therefore, Vernor did not receive title to
> the copies from CTA and accordingly could not pass
> ownership on to others. Both CTA’s and
> Vernor’s sales infringed Autodesk’s exclusive
> right to distribute copies of its work. Id. §
> 106(3).
>

>
> While there have been conflicting rulings in the
> past, under US law this is currently the
> precedent.

That is one of the funny interpretations I was referring to. AFAIK this is the first time that shrinkwrap has actually been tested, and the result is really anomalous.

Normally if one buys copyright material, like a book or CD, one has the right to resell it, while the copyright is retained by the author. When you buy something, the contract of sale is with the retailer, not the original author/manufacturer. The originator retains their IP rights, but can't dictate how the product is bought or sold. The contract terms are not transferable.

Now software companies decided because software was new and judges and consumers didn't understand it, they could start "licensing" software to end-users and sneak around the first-sale doctrine. This allows manufacturers to create contract terms that are transferable. This has now been done for so long it seems to have become accepted. Even judges are falling for it.

Perhaps software is "just different". But the same licensing idea could be applied to anything: books, CDs, TVs, cars, anything where there is some IP embodied. You would need to get permission from the manufacturer to sell your used car.

It is a logical extension of the Vernor vs Autodesk ruling. That sort of future seems to have been rejected by the Supreme Court in the Wiley ruling [www.theverge.com]. (Amazing that this had to go to SC, makes me sceptical of the lower court rulings. Of course, the SC has made some dubious judgements as well.)

So we have first-sale applied to all copyright works except software, which is allowed to be licensed to end-users, unlike any other product*. It really is strange. Honestly, I think it is more to do with the massive clout of the US software
industry, rather than legal or common sense.

* Actually, this is now sneaking in to other areas. e.g. the "books" you download to your Kindle, are owned by Amazon, not you. They can withdraw your ability to use them when they feel like it. I think we are heading down a very slippery slope.

It seems to me that you guys forget about the golden rule: laws are made not on a clean room but in real world where lobbying efforts go a long way (those who have the gold make the rules). Trying to understand how certain rules have been extended (ie copyright) to certain works cannot be understood if considered only as a philosophical question.

On the other hand, we tend to assume that people have a saying on the use of their inventions or ideas but, IMHO, they have not once they decided to make them public. I am afraid we have created that fiction to encourage people to communicate those ideas that may be of interest to the community. Being able to make money out of your idea or invention, or getting some fame, is just a reward for publishing your works. But it has not always being that way (unless anonymous was really a prolific author :-).

I think that an invention made public is like throwing a paper plane through the window: once it is out there, there is not much the creator can do to steer it in any direction, and several forces will act upon it without the creator being able to do much more than watching it glide away. Of course there is a strong legal construct that will tell us the opposite.

You may learn how deeply sorry Einstein was about the bomb he helped build. The truth is that while he was instrumental on the idea of building it, once he explained the idea, he was no longer able to get it back to his hat nor he had a saying on how or where to use it.

When people share a passion for something, sharing knowledge with those who share the same passion seems the natural thing to do. We always have a chance of learning things from others, and when we do, we usually end up wiser than before, it is a win-win whether it is 3d-printing, ham radio, RC or whatever. This is the reason why we are here.