Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Reverse Engineering

[arthur_torrey]

Yes, repair.org is the new name for the folks that started out as Digital right 
to repair...  

On the OSHWA, I don't see a conflict just because of the name.  As I said 
previously, I think that even Richard has said that 'Open Source' is a better 
term for hardware, since it isn't possible to replicate and distribute 'Free 
Hardware'.  The only thing that can be distributed at no cost to the 
distributing person is the design/build information which is as close to 
'source code' as one can get...  Thus 'Open Source' is the correct term for 
hardware.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that while one can come up with and 
apply all sorts of 'free hardware' licenses (and there are several existing 
ones to pick from) they aren't really enforceable.  The problem is that the 
'value' of a hardware item is in the physical object, not the design files...  
Physical objects are protected by patents, not copyrights, and the design files 
are considered 'incidental' to the object, since one can draw the design for a 
given object in an infinite number of ways...  A license for the design files 
would only protect THAT particular file set, and not the object made from it.

It also doesn't prevent reverse engineering - If I buy a patented 
'Wonder-Widget' I can take it apart and make measurements etc. to draw plans 
enough to reproduce it 100% legally.  I could then copyright the plans that I 
drew and sell / give them away in any way I wanted, without the WW company 
being able to stop me.  However I could NOT legally MAKE and distribute 
Wonder-Widgets because that would be violating their patent...

ART 
======== Original Message =========

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:42:34 +0100
From: Fabio Pesari <fabiop@gnu.org>
To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Reverse Engineering
Message-ID: <56BAF7FA.8060900@gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, arthur_torrey@comcast.net wrote:
> This seems like something that MIGHT be helped, or at least encouraged, by 
> the folks in the "Digital Right to Repair" movement.  They are trying to 
> produce a legal REQUIREMENT that companies release the information needed for 
> outside entities to service their products to the same extent that an 
> in-house entity would.  I don't know that this would drill down far enough to 
> require releasing signing keys, but one might be able to make a case for 
> it....  If nothing else it would make it harder to block efforts to crack the 
> signature...

Do you mean http://repair.org/ ? I agree. I think the FSF should
approach them.

> That said, there is the Open Source Hardware Association 
> http://www.oshwa.org/ that does in some ways try to do the equivalent of the 
> FSF...  

Thanks. I think their name along makes collaboration with the FSF
unlikely, too bad. I think the emphasis should be on freedom and on
hardware designs rather than actual hardware: those can be copyrighted
just fine.
==================
------------------
Arthur Torrey - <arthur_torrey@comcast.net>
-------------------