[hpsdr] Where do I watch for Minerva/DFC [Solved]

[Scott Traurig]

*Very* well said, John, thank you!

TAPR is subject to the same economic realities as anyone else, and TAPR
should never find itself losing money on any investment in a project.

73,

Scott/w-u-2-o

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 7:56 AM, John Ackermann N8UR <jra at febo.com> wrote:

> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
>
> Given the recent discussion about the role of TAPR, Apache Labs, etc., I
> thought I should jump in since I was involved in a lot of this history. I
> am *not* speaking officially for TAPR in the following.
>
> 1.  TAPR views itself as a technology incubator, not a radio company. When
> we provide kits or assembled products, we usually do it because that item
> isn't available anywhere else.  We don't want to compete with someone who
> is willing to do a commercial product.  In fact, if a company is able to
> make a commercial success from an open hardware project, that's a *good*
> thing!
>
> 2.  The TAPR OHL was created at the request of the original HPSDR
> developers, and the HPSDR boards were the first guinea pigs for its use.
> The NCL version in particular was an attempt to walk a tightrope that in
> the end didn't work as planned; we no longer recommend its use.
>
> 3.  TAPR never owned the HPSDR designs; we just provided manufacturing and
> other support to the project.
>
> 4.  I won't go into specifics about the way Hermes development occurred,
> or how Apache Labs got involved.  The position that Apache took with
> respect to the Hermes board layout was consistent with the way intellectual
> property licensing works, but was also not what TAPR had expected.  I'll
> just say that the lack of common understanding resulted from the newness of
> the open hardware concept and lack of clear written agreement.  There is
> really no blame on anyone.  We've all learned from that experience.
>
> 5.  As a result of that learning, TAPR's current policy is to fund
> production of OHL projects only where the developers agree in writing on
> some requirements in exchange for support.  Our biggest concern is not to
> get stuck with inventory because someone decides to use the Gerbers to
> manufacture the product in competition with us.  The up-front production
> cost is a very big deal for our small organization, so we need to protect
> that investment.
>
> 6.  The requirements are mainly that in exchange for support, the
> developers agree to use the OHL, but not to release Gerbers or other
> manufacturing documentation until after the TAPR production run is sold
> out.  This protects our investment.  We strongly encourage early release of
> other documentation (schematics, code, etc.).
>
> 6.  Finally, TAPR isn't a market research company.  We normally get
> involved in a project when developers come to us asking for support.  If
> they don't ask for help, we can't provide it.
>
> I hope this helps clarify the situation.
>
> 73,
> John
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/attachments/20180628/a659d958/attachment.html>