Slashdot Mirror
Lessig's "Creative Commons" @ The FAA
tramm writes "The
FAA, working with the
EAA have put together
a proposal to release old type certificates and blueprints once the copyright holders no longer exist. Sort of like
Abandonware
for
airplanes.
This very closely resembles
Lawrence Lessig's idea of a
creative commons, into which source code would be escrowed. Once the copyright expired or became abandonded, the sources would be released.
"This set of legal guidelines will help the FAA develop a set of
procedures to legally release what had previously been unnecessarily
protected as proprietary data.".
Hopefully the Copyright office will take note of the success here, as well as the Supreme Court's hearing of
Eldred v Reno."
Sounds like a good idea to me, sorta like software companies that put their source code into escrow so that if they go under, their customers can legally obtain it.
I'd love to see acutual engineering documents and code for stuff like the Saturn V, the lunar module and the ground control computers
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
The GPL is based on Copyleft, which is just an construct on top of copyright law. When the copyright on GPL'd software expires, does the software fall into the public domain?
If copyrights are to be shortened to, say, 7 years, does GPL'd code then become public domain after those seven years?
It's a point worth pondering.
it's not quite engineering blueprints, but Nasa's Mission Reports are pretty close for a single book. Detailed overview of the operation of the vehicles with lots of nice drawings detailing the nuts and bolts. So if you're curious about turbopumps or how you ignite a Saturn V rocket engine you'll like these books. They also generally include the crew debriefing where they talk about most of the interesting glitches in the mission...
check out http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/ /. some time ago). As far as I remember, it started when NASA decided to give some of its code to Open Source community.
:)
(it was mentioned on
Stuff like "An Advanced Engineering Model for the Prediction of Airframe Integrated Scramjet Cycle Performance". It's a pity I do not have too much time anymore to study all the programs available there...
And, of course, we all know that Beowulf started in NASA/JPL when Don worked there...
Paul B.
I would really doubt that a 3rd party could bring suit in a copyright case. After all, how were they damaged by the violation/infringement? Also, if the party being sued was found guilty, who would recieve the money from the judgement?
So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
tramm is right in proposing that this abandonware project is similar to what has been discussed about the Creative Commons. But as one of the directors of the Commons, may I suggest we hold off much public discussion until the Commons is ready--maybe within a few weeks...
With the blueprints to software, you just run them through a compiler and a few minutes later, presto, you have the completed program. Want to manufacture another identical program? A few clicks, a few keypresses, and it's done. Not only that, but no bureaucrat is going to look over your shoulder or ask you to justify yourself as to why your assembled it that way instead of this way. Generally no one is going to tell you what you can or can't do with your precious program. No licenses, no training. Almost complete and total freedom.
Now let's move from the make-believe world of software and Slashdot to the real world of airplane building. You have the blueprints? Great. How about the BOM? You do know what a BOM is, don't you? Go make a BOM, once you've figured it out. Go assemble everything together by yourself, or pay someone to do it for you. Keep in mind that it will require ~1000+ hours for assembly. Keep in mind that a 40hr workweek is about 2000hrs a year. Some assembly operations may require special jigs, or tools. Go buy or build those.
Now you have a plane. Guess what? You can't do squat with it, until some bureaucrats say you can. They're not too evil, but they will require you prove the plane is safe, and they will restrict what you can do with it and where you can go.
It's not the same. Slashdot, stick to the kiddie stuff and leave the real world to the big boys.
Many of you have this all wrong.
This only really applies to homebuilders. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is out there to promote building of homebuilt aircraft. They want these documents out there in the open to promote homebuilding, not lets build such and such WWII aircraft and know how to build this jet.
Most of these aircraft, most likely are little single-engined aircraft that most people dont understand one from another. This is really only applicable to you if you want to BUILD it and you want the plans or want to do some sort of coversion and you need the FAA approved STC.
These plans and STCs are very expensive to get so people like to hold on to them and charge for their usage. SO when you cant find the person anymore, you're SOL.
They are a fine organization that helps homebuilders of various unusual aircraft.
Ya see, if you want to get a new aircraft FAA approved, it costs millions of dollars and a couple of years of expensive testing. Until Cirrus Aviation got the SR200 certified in 2000, no one had got a new light General Aviation aircraft certified in years, everyone was just building them off the old type certificates.
But, if you build it yourself. (More than 50% of the effort) you can fly any weird-assed kind of airplane, with a very minimal level of certification.
Most homebuilders use kits, though theres still a lot of work to do to complete the aircraft, and qualify under the 50% rule.
The EAA exists to help these people.