[Discuss] public files vs export control laws

Will Canine willcanine at gmail.com
Fri May 10 19:59:06 UTC 2013


I think you're right that there is a danger if Cody Wilson's radical voice
is the only one people manage to hear -- and his combination of
two controversial subjects is, as you point out, a powerful amplifier.
People are listening, and the press is looking hungrily for the next step
in this story.

We are not in a position to influence Cody's tactics, no matter how
ill-advised we might find them. We are, however, in a strong position to
offer the passionate, informed, and moderate counter point in a debate that
is gaining national attention. I think some sort of open letter or
interview, some sort of call for a debate, something, is in order.

Bottom line: I think we should be talking about our own tactics in this
media situation, not just others'. What do you all think?


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:

> Flip side is of course you can argue that ITAR prevents other countries
> from competing with us by denying them access to our special sauce.
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Tom Igoe <t.igoe at arduino.cc> wrote:
>
>> What's likely to shake ITAR is money going overseas because of it. If I
>> wanted to counter it, I'd show how the US is losing money because of it.
>>  As a country, we've shown quite decisively lately that we have no
>> political will to stop anything to do with weapons, but we sure as hell
>> care when a non-American takes a job we believe is ours (whether it is or
>> not).
>>
>> t.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 10, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130510/56db7294/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list