[Discuss] public files vs export control laws

Matt Joyce matt at nycresistor.com
Fri May 10 19:25:47 UTC 2013


My understanding is that ardupilot does their releases from Europe
specifically to avoid potential ITAR violations.

ITAR is fairly heavily used to restrict aerospace and space systems work.

SpaceGambit for instance being Darpa funded cannot escape ITAR
restrictions.  Which severely limits what they can do and with whom ( IE
non US citizens ).

In Cody's case, he is a lot more vocal about being a rebellious hellion
than he actually is.  The man is very good at dotting 'i's and crossing
't's.  The DoD ITAR transgressions aren't proven and the DoD simply
requested they formalize any classification of the specified CAD work.
Most of those were fairly esoteric... including designs for a tank shell,
an adapter for an oil can silencer, and the liberator.  The liberator is
most likely not covered by ITAR.  The tank shell probably is.

But yes.  ITAR is real.  We are all required to adhere to it in the US.

-Matt


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Tom Igoe <t.igoe at arduino.cc> wrote:

> I have a pretty good understanding of his tactics, I've been through a
> number of interviews and articles, and seen similar patterns before. I just
> think they are ill-advised. He's got two controversial topics in his
> actions:  weapons reform, and intellectual property reform. By doing what
> he's doing, he's tied the two together in many people's minds.  So now
> those same people will be less receptive to the idea that intellectual
> property regulation on its own is worth discussing.
>
> Cody's chosen to take a radical stance. That's fine, but the consequence
> of that choose is that you alienate more people than you do than by taking
> a collaborative stance. He's got to live with that consequence, and
> unfortunately, now so do those of us who share his feelings about
> intellectual property reform.
>
> t.
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Will Canine <willcanine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that Wilson's point is that regulation can't stop the dispersion
> of disruptive designs via the Internet; he is not really looking for a
> waver or exemption or anything like that. His point is that now it's
> started, it can't be stopped, regulation be damned.
>
> I'm as uninterested in guns as anyone here, but I do think it's worth
> looking at what he is doing more closely -- his tactics are worth learning
> from at the very least.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd have to agree, Malcolm.
>
> malcolm stanley <a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My experience with Export Control for encryption technologies used in
>> consumer devices, instantiated as DRM solutions for Video on Demand movies,
>> suggests to me that the exception being sought is somewhat ... unrealistic.
>>
>> Weaponization of any technology is probably a poor strategy for
>> accomplishing the acheivement of a waiver from regulation.
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> malcolm stanley
>>
>> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>> _________________________________________
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> This is a dilemma that's been building up for a while now. Open source
>>> is all about sharing ideas so that anyone who wants to build them, or build
>>> off of them, can do so. Export control is a legal regime that makes sharing
>>> of certain ideas with non-authorized entities a federal crime.
>>>
>>> Those of you who were at the hardware documentation jam might remember
>>> the subject of legal constraints coming up, but at the time I didn't have a
>>> good example.
>>>
>>> It would seem that we now have our test case. The State Department has
>>> ordered Defense Distributed to stop that whole "sharing guns" thing while
>>> they review whether or not making them internationally available violates
>>> International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/
>>>
>>> Cody Wilson, a law student, says that what he's doing falls into a
>>> protected exception for non-profit public domain research. His argument is
>>> that the files are "stored in a library" in the sense that all libraries
>>> have internet access and there is a single bookstore in Austin providing
>>> the published plans.
>>>
>>> Getting any kind of official exception to export control for open source
>>> technology development would be a huge win. It would pave the way for much
>>> more ambitious projects.
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130510/f48584b8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list