Re: [Arm-netbook] Patent-Left

[Hendrik Boom]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 09:13:11AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Adam Van Ymeren  wrote:
> 
> > I think there's some misconceptions about what Luke is trying to prevent.
> 
>  looks like it.  in the extreme case i am trying to prevent people
> being murdered.  this is not an exaggeration.  i don't understand why
> people don't understand this.
> 
>  btw it turns out that Certification Marks are perfectly compatible
> with the GPL licenses.  there are specific sections (in all variants),
> "if there is any conflict with this license that prevents you from
> fulfilling your obligations under this GPL license, you are required
> to cease distribution" or words to that effect.

And all you have to do to distribute uder a GPL licence is ths bake sure 
that there are no certification marks in it.

That doesn't mean you can't have source code that can be compile-time 
parameterized with a certificatin mark.

But anyone modifying the certiied source code will presumably have to 
have it recertified before using the certification mark on it.

-- hendrik

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Patent-Left

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:

>> devices, someone has to take action.
>>
>
> That makes sense.
> Recognizing standards organisations as a victim (of eroding public
> trust), that motivates the organization to perform more of a watch-dog
> service by initiating class-action lawsuits on behalf of themselves
> and the public-at-large.

 exactly.  the nightmare scenario, and one of the reasons for being so
extremely strict about this.  and also why the impartiality is
critical (no being an actual "business").

 but, most important, we need to work with the tools that we have
*right now*, and those tools are not patents, but Certification
Mark(s).  patents are obtainable on *business* processes and
*inventions*, not APIs or mathematics or "obvious stuff".  a Standard
is not a business process, some parts of it are blindingly-obvious
common sense, and in this particular case it's an aggregation of other
standards.  it wouldn't pass the "innovative step" process of
patenting in a million years.  oh, and it's comprised of prior art.
and i've published it.  and discussed it at length.  deliberately.

>>
>>  https://noram.pecb.com/en/about-noram
>>
>>  damn.  going to have to set something up that's pretty much exactly
>> like every single one of the *9* pages listed on the right-hand side.
>>
>>  dang.
>>
>
> I'll help with editing if welcome.

 really appreciated.

> Bear in mind, the most vital future audience of said documents will
> likely be the people you end up training down  the road.

 yes.  i made a huge reorganisation effort about... 2 years ago.  the
thing is that there are actually *multiple* sets of documents that
need to be written, one set for *each* type of person: END_USER,
TECHNICAL_END_USER, MANUFACTURER, REPURPOSER and so on.

 hmmm would it be reasonable to expect end-users to agree to
commit to proper re-purposing instead of disposal as "junk" [recycling
/ discarding of perfectly good Cards / Housings]?  and would it be
reasonable to expect a Manufacturer to sell it with an enforceable
license agreement, both for the hardware *and* the software?  we get
software EULAs all the time with major electronics manufacturers, so i
don't see why not...

> The ethics of
> the community may be obvious to the most vocal of us on the list, but
> having impactful reminders set in stone will sustain the focus of
> those who are less vocal and forget to set reminders for themselves of
> their own principles.

 precisely.  i can't hand over the project to such a group *until*
that's absolutely clear.

> (such people are rather common, but, for the more passionate among us,
> they maybe difficult to understand or empathize with. Such documents
> fuel cooperation when well written, but, also bear in mind, PECB's
> audience likely reads much more densely than ours will.)

 in certain segments... yes.  which says that for the END_USER segment
(audience), the documents must be much, *much* simpler.


>>  question: how do you propose that people not get murdered by the
>> incompetence of an individual who blatantly disregards a hardware
>> standard's safety warnings?  (we are extremely lucky that nobody has
>> murdered anyone through the deployment of "bad-usb").
>
> Yup, I'm thinking longterm and asking myself "out-loud" exactly that.
> Setting aside these really hack-y patent-left ideas, I can only
> imagine expressing deeper morals in design of global information
> networks is a prerequisite to any clean fix here and that will take a
> very long while even upon interest in such initiative hopefully
> growing soon.

 there's not really a lot that can be done without drastically pushing
up the costs to the point where nobody would buy anything.  but also i
feel that the fact that people *haven't* created USB-killing-devices,
despite the opportunity to do so (in the context of EOMA68 not being
in the picture) and despite the fact that it's public knowledge on how
to do it, tells us that people - in general - recognise that
deliberate destruction of peoples' electronics devices via ubiquitous
interfaces just... is anathemic.

> Another prerequisite is probably the simplification of PCB-design and

 this is why i kept the micro-desktop reference design so basic.  i
remember jonathon expressed complete surprise at learning that.


> more interest in auditing, but that's not even a topic that's
> noticeably talked about, except in the fringes of the open source
> community and often only with regards to RISC.

 software again.  hardware is *hard*.

> There are people who may have access to a large community without
> access to the internet (say an oppressive regime or in the
> wilderness), who might get a hold of a card with offline documentation
> and CAD-designs. Their adaptations and designs shouldn't be de facto
> dangerous if found and uploaded to the internet.

 that's a tough one to solve.

> I would hope this can be remedied before we colonize Mars.

 ha :)

Re: [Arm-netbook] Patent-Left

[Jean Flamelle]

On 2/24/18, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
>  it does, and it has.  the cases that i've heard about have involved
> Trademarks rather than Certification Marks: the same branch of law
> applies.  it's very simple: if someone creates a "clone" and the
> *clone* kills someone or starts destroying and/or damaging electronic
> devices, someone has to take action.
>

That makes sense.
Recognizing standards organisations as a victim (of eroding public
trust), that motivates the organization to perform more of a watch-dog
service by initiating class-action lawsuits on behalf of themselves
and the public-at-large.

>
>  https://noram.pecb.com/en/about-noram
>
>  damn.  going to have to set something up that's pretty much exactly
> like every single one of the *9* pages listed on the right-hand side.
>
>  dang.
>

I'll help with editing if welcome.
Bear in mind, the most vital future audience of said documents will
likely be the people you end up training down  the road. The ethics of
the community may be obvious to the most vocal of us on the list, but
having impactful reminders set in stone will sustain the focus of
those who are less vocal and forget to set reminders for themselves of
their own principles.
(such people are rather common, but, for the more passionate among us,
they maybe difficult to understand or empathize with. Such documents
fuel cooperation when well written, but, also bear in mind, PECB's
audience likely reads much more densely than ours will.)

>  question: how do you propose that people not get murdered by the
> incompetence of an individual who blatantly disregards a hardware
> standard's safety warnings?  (we are extremely lucky that nobody has
> murdered anyone through the deployment of "bad-usb").

Yup, I'm thinking longterm and asking myself "out-loud" exactly that.
Setting aside these really hack-y patent-left ideas, I can only
imagine expressing deeper morals in design of global information
networks is a prerequisite to any clean fix here and that will take a
very long while even upon interest in such initiative hopefully
growing soon.
Another prerequisite is probably the simplification of PCB-design and
more interest in auditing, but that's not even a topic that's
noticeably talked about, except in the fringes of the open source
community and often only with regards to RISC.

There are people who may have access to a large community without
access to the internet (say an oppressive regime or in the
wilderness), who might get a hold of a card with offline documentation
and CAD-designs. Their adaptations and designs shouldn't be de facto
dangerous if found and uploaded to the internet.

I would hope this can be remedied before we colonize Mars.

I never doubted you about the dangers.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Patent-Left

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:

> markets" release. Even if the standard is copyrighted that I doubt
> using that as a protection against a copy-cat of a "similar" standard
> has been tested in very many courts (I have no expertise to really
> advise).

 it does, and it has.  the cases that i've heard about have involved
Trademarks rather than Certification Marks: the same branch of law
applies.  it's very simple: if someone creates a "clone" and the
*clone* kills someone or starts destroying and/or damaging electronic
devices, someone has to take action.

 what would you prefer?  that someone *died* because someone made a
clone,,, just so they could make some money?



 https://noram.pecb.com/en/about-noram

 damn.  going to have to set something up that's pretty much exactly
like every single one of the *9* pages listed on the right-hand side.

 dang.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Patent-Left

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Adam Van Ymeren  wrote:

> I think there's some misconceptions about what Luke is trying to prevent.

 looks like it.  in the extreme case i am trying to prevent people
being murdered.  this is not an exaggeration.  i don't understand why
people don't understand this.

 btw it turns out that Certification Marks are perfectly compatible
with the GPL licenses.  there are specific sections (in all variants),
"if there is any conflict with this license that prevents you from
fulfilling your obligations under this GPL license, you are required
to cease distribution" or words to that effect.

 l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Patent-Left

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
> Disclaimer: this is a brainstorm of ideas on what is practical. I am a

 appreciated.

> economic support to be had for anyone involved. It wouldn't agree with
> my morals if someone had to ask Luke's permission to make an EOMA
> card,

 remember that software can always be fixed after it is released.

 hardware *CANNOT BE FIXED*.

 chinese clones of USB3 cables that fail to obey the USB3 charging standard.

 chinese knock-offs of chargeable fidget-spinners that explode and
cause lithium battery fires.

 so the most extreme case is also the most damaging, but it doesn't
actually matter which is more "extreme", *any* damage to the
reputation of a mass-volume Certified Standard is enough to completely
destroy the Standard, due to the sheer volume of people who will blame
the STANDARD *and* the Standard's CREATOR.

 question: how do you propose that people not get murdered by the
incompetence of an individual who blatantly disregards a hardware
standard's safety warnings?  (we are extremely lucky that nobody has
murdered anyone through the deployment of "bad-usb").

 l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk