[hpsdr] hpsdr Digest, Vol 4, Issue 20

[Bill Beech (NJ7P)]

Lyle,

I agree with you.  Let us play the opensource card to the fullest to 
energize amateur radio. 

73,
Bill, NJ7P

>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:39:38 -0700
>From: Lyle Johnson <kk7p at wavecable.com>
>Subject: Re: [hpsdr] parts kit vs mounted SMT
>To: Eric Ellison <ecellison at comcast.net>
>Cc: 'HPSDR List' <hpsdr at hpsdr.org>
>Message-ID: <448C636A.9040502 at wavecable.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>  
>
>>>*** 
>>>
>>>I am sure there are for-profit companies that will be wanting to step in 
>>>and offer assembled and tested board level products.  Being open source, 
>>>no one can or should try and prevent them from doing so.  Being open 
>>>source, there is plenty of opportunity for the marketplace to keep 
>>>pricing efficient, especially if we are successful in getting an open 
>>>source hardware license structure in place that assures derivative 
>>>designs are just as open as the source designs.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>***
>>Of course! Let's turn over our (your) copyrights to TAPR. Let's find a way
>>for them/us to license the IP you generate. Some of these productions like
>>Mercury, or Gibralter will produce the best state of the art, products in
>>the world. Why limit them to a 'kit of parts'. I think that TAPR could
>>manage the income by giving the $ earned in licensing fees to electronics
>>oriented scholarships or some other beneficial, non-profit donations! 
>>*** 
>>    
>>
>
>I respectfully disagree.
>
>I want to give (at least some of) my HPSDR IP to Amateur radio through 
>an open source model.  The IP I contribute, by itself, is insufficient 
>for the tasks at hand.  Working together with others, we can jointly and 
>severally provide combined IP that potentially has a huge, positive 
>impact on Amateur radio.  Providing it to TAPR for sublicensing could be 
>perceived as a conflict of interest with my employer(s), or the 
>employer(s) of other contributors.
>
>By making it all open source, there are no license fees.  And anyone who 
>makes derivative works has to contribute those back to the community. 
>The contribution back to the community of derivative works is a 
>leveraging obligation of potentially major significance, and makes the 
>lack of licensing revenue a reasonable price.
>
>I have no personal issue with TAPR making and selling assembled and 
>tested boards for HPSDR.  I strongly suspect it could be a problem 
>vis-a-vis their tax-exempt status.  That is for the TAPR BoD and their 
>legal counsel to determine.
>
>I agree that the marketplace will demand assembled and tested boards. 
>And once we have enough boards working well, and doing interesting 
>things, the entrepreneurs  will see to it that the marketplace is 
>satisfied.  Meanwhile, TAPR will have fulfilled its charter to 
>jump-start the technology and raise awareness within the Amateur radio 
>community in a financially responsible and supportive3 way.
>
>Everyone wins.
>
>73,
>
>Lyle KK7P
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/attachments/20060611/96310898/attachment-0003.htm>