[Discuss] public files vs export control laws

Sat May 11 19:57:20 UTC 2013

Bear with me as I am confused by this assertion:

Are not those same politicians helped along by traditional manufacturers of guns, via their trade association the NRA?

Do we know that those manufacturers are supportive of this new technology which could be potentially disruptive to their marketplace?

If not we may find their support of their interpretation of the 2nd amendment begins to display some nuance...

Sent from my iPhone

On May 10, 2013, at 19:10, David Carrier <dcarrier at parallax.com> wrote:

> There may be a a plus side to this case being about guns.  Had the DoD taken down DIY Drones, which they could consider an ITAR controlled export, the only political support would be from the relatively small group of politicians and NPOs that are aware of, and interested in, open-source hardware.  There aren't many pro-drone politicians.
> 
> Being that this involves guns too, there are many politicians and NPOs that strongly oppose restrictions on guns and will do everything they can to make sure Defense Distributed comes out on the winning side of the debate.  Regardless of any of our individual views on guns and gun control, Cody Wilson may be fighting ITAR restrictions on open-source hardware from an angle that is more likely to win.
> 
> — David Carrier
> 
> 
> Tom Igoe 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130511/02ff0af6/attachment-0001.html>