[Discuss] public files vs export control laws

Fri May 10 21:13:19 UTC 2013

Hi,
I teach physical computing at Parsons, and I'm one half of the team that
makes Pulse Sensor <http://pulsesensor.myshopify.com/>, a heart rate
monitor for arduino.
Also consulting on the hardware design for the team that won a DARPA
solicitation to build a low-cost, high-quality EEG sensor. Cool thing about
that is they mandate it to be Open Source. Not under contract yet, but
aiming to have some fun devices by the time of the OSH summit.

The Pulse Sensor gets some attention my way from companies that are looking
to either incorporate my design into their product, or hire me to design a
variant for them. Conversations don't usually get far past the words Open
Hardware, but on two occasions I have strong interest in either a variant
or a new design (SpO2 sensor) with the understanding that we have to follow
the Open Hardware rules. It's exciting. The most interesting space is at
the margin between OSH and IP.

The EEG project will be high profile. Planning on publishing the entire
process. Hope that can be an example of OIP that has a positive influence :]

Open Hardware has created an entire economy of entrepreneurs, online
retailers, and a customer base that is dedicated to self education and
pushing the work further. Definitely can be said that Open Hardware has a
positive effect on the economy.

Agree that more positive examples help to dilute the negative energy of the
plastic gun. Lots of work being done in the area of Health 2.0 that are
open.

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tom Igoe <t.igoe at arduino.cc> wrote:

> I agree Will, good approach.  What tactics do you recommend?
>
> Let's try a positive tack: what examples of open IP can we point to that
> are already influencing the general public's lives for the better?
>
>
> t.
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Will Canine <willcanine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Making the world safe for robots
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130510/eff92dbb/attachment-0001.html>