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."
Doesn't the Bono act make this a moot point? Exactly when are these copyrights ever going to expire?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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.
Just so people don't get confused about what this will achieve: It will only help vintage aircraft oweners. Most of the old vintage aircraft have no manuals (IPCs etc); and the repairs would generally be applied through FAA approved engineers. Most, if not all newer aircraft will not be affected by this. I do not think that the FAA will let any one build an aircraft using these blueprints because the certification nw is totally different than earlier last century. They may however be built as experimental aircraft. That is where I think te EAA comes in.
While it may be perfectly sensible in this case (hey, aircraft and software are very different), I think a LOT of people would be nervous if their source code was automatically made available once their 'copyright' was over, this is a MUCH more serious step than just loosing your copyright.
if you loose a copyright, people can copy the program, but still need to reverse-engineer the source if they want to know your implementation.
of course, I'm totally supportive of fully open source, but we should remember that copyright is peoples right if they decide to go that way, and we should not assume that when this lapses we have the right to ALL of their work, they just loose that particular bit of protection.
there is a world of difference between copyright on a particular implementation, and the massivly 'general' patents currently being handed out in the US over quite obvious software techniques, the second are much more... stuipd, dangerous, ridiculous, etc, etc.... however copright is a MUCH simpler concent, so long as it's length is kept reasonable, and it's extent is limited.
of course, in the case of the copyright holder 'ceasing to exist' the case becomes much more hazy.. since ther is noone to defent the copyright, I guess all bets are off, but should their 'source code' (or exact plans/designs) be automatically made public? and who do we trust to hold these? hmmm... I personally think that would be excessive.
As a programmer, I've written for the z80 before, and I'd have to say no. Actually, I would argue the other way - when computer hardware becomes obsolete, it has become outdated and 'hard to program for.' But the advantage in this is learning how programmers did things in such a limited environment (such as the 8-bit z80 with only 64k of mem).
You can learn a lot from old programs, such as how you can use bitwise commands to your advantage (which is priceless, IMO). Anyway, my point is that you can learn good and/or efficient programming techniques from old/obsolete hardware, which might otherwise go unlearned if you only program in languages that hide these things (like the use of bitmasks and toying with flags, and self-modifying code) from the programmer.
Yes yes it would. many overlook that point but all in all I think it is a good thing.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
September 11 happened because of poor airport and airline security, not because the terrorists had knowledge of the design of the aircraft itself.
Besides, we are talking about old aircraft that are no longer being flown by airlines.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
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?
Copyleft is a made-up word, not a legal concept. GPL'd software is copyrighted, with a license that grants permission to use the code in certain ways (which you normally wouldn't be able to with a copyrighted work). If the copyright expires, the software falls into the public domain, and you can now do those things with the software without using the GPL to do it, and thus not being restricted by the terms of the GPL.
However, since a GPL'd app can be copyrighted by many people (each contributor is a copyright holder), you'd need to wait until all the copyrights expired, or all the copyrights that pertain to the section you want to use. If copyrights have been assigned to the FSF or some other group, that would simplify things.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
This is a damn good idea. Lots of planes are flying long after their original designer and manufacturer are defunct, and anything that helps that is a good thing. People may even take this occasion to bring well loved classic aircraft back into production.
However, I would like to take this occasion to point out one very worthwhile extension of copyright. J.M.Barrie, creator of "Peter Pan" bequeathed his royalties to the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. When the copyright was due to expire in 1989, a special case was made in UK courts that the copyright be held in perpetuity by the hospital.
Now that's a good copyright extension. It helps people.
"Information wants to be paid"
This information (the plane plans) is apparently considered under copyright as unpublished material.
But copyright was intended, I assert, to allow limited protection for material to be published and thus accessible to all readers who wish to buy the work.
Since these plans serve as a sort of public law document (they must be recorded with the FAA by the plane manufacturer and need to be accessible to them in order to check plane maintenance) then the question arises: Why copyright the plans in the first place? What public interest is being served by locking them up?
Yes, recent U.S. law allows airplane plans just as boat hulls to be protected as "intellectual property." But at least they could be published and thus available for a fee, instead of being locked up as trade secrets. Citizens ought to have a right to know (which is why the involvement of the Freedom of Information Office is interesting here).
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...
Actually, there's a report out now which discusses in detail the amount of information bin Laden had concerning the architectural structure of the WTC. After the original attack in '93(?) failed Al Qaeda studied the plans for the WTC. They did a thorough analysis of the best point to crash a large airplane into the building to start a chain reaction collapse. Had the planes hit the towers a few too many floors too high or low or a bit more to one corner and the towers would still be standing today.
While I do not agree that blueprints and plans should be locked away, I feel there should be a check-in/out process for sensitive information. This way should something like this happen, law enforcement has a starting point to begin their investigation.
Actually I've found the moderators to be very helpful when I've bothered to e-mail them about something -- Tim and I had a fun and informative exchange of several e-mails a few months back.
I'd rather not e-mail them directly about this since it sort of falls into the category of 'Why haven't you accepted my post yet?' which I'm sure they get way too many of. Then again, I suppose inflicting my request on the readership at large isn't too smart a move either!
You actually believe your post?
Excuse me, but in order to fly a 767, you have to understand the principles of flight, navigation and controls.
It isn't like driving a car, and it most certainly wasn't simply "because of poor airport and airline security". Who was to know box cutters would be use to hijack and are we supposed to know a terrorist from a non terrorist by the way people look?
More people die every month because of drunk drivers then airplane accidents year round.
Its ignorance of people who never fly that give aviation and General/Private aviation a bad name.
Yes, to fly a 747 and 140mph over VNE takes some skill
Yes aiming an aircraft going over "terminal velocity" into a toothpick in all reality is HARD TO DO.
You don't just pull the yoke and fly'thabitch, you have to understand pitch, yaw, roll control as well as attitude and flight characteristics of the airplane to do what they did. Knowing how to use the GPS, knowing how to disable your transponder, knowing how to comminicate with other hijacked craft and having the skill to know your going to die and be able to control the aircraft is a death defying feat in itself.. i'm just glad the f***ers are dead and not able to do it again.
It was the lack of many factors that caused this, none simply the fault of airlines/aviation.
It never works.
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.
Dr Disney I suppose :-)
Infuriate left and right
Then there are STCs - Supplemental Type Certificates. These are authorized post-production modifications. Getting an STC accepted by the FAA is expensive. For example, an STC might allow you to run an OX-5 in a JN-4 Jenny on "blue" 100LL fuel instead of "green" 135 (hypothetical example, I have no idea what an OX-5 likes to drink). If it's not a popular STC, it's possible that the company went defunct and no one bought the STC. If you now want to use blue gas in your Jenny, you can't use the data that's already been given to the FAA proving that it's safe (that was the basis the original STC was issued on) -- you have to start from scratch.
The important things about this: i) no owner can be found (and it provides for a 60 day search period) and ii) the data will be released under FOIA.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
"I heard" that bin Laden was surprised at the total collapse of the towers.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
I'm not sure I understand you. The whole point of having a copyright period is that it ends at some point and then whatever was copyrighted goes into the public domain. The public domain belongs to the public (duh) so therefore I have full rights to anything that has an elapsed copyright. That's the way it works.
Of course, if someone 'ceases to exist' before their copyright is up, why shouldn't the same thing happen? We're not depriving the copyright holder of their rights because they don't exist anymore. If there was a sale or transfer of intellectual property then the copyright went to whoever the new owner is and this scenario doesn't apply. All this FAA/EAA move does is ensure that things pass into the public domain as they should.
What, exactly, are you proposing? Keeping things in the public domain a secret? Banning all copying of information? Leaving orphaned information out there to die? I'm not sure what you're arguing for.
This
But also the EAA has a large membership percentage that are very talented aerospace professionals by day, who are also aerospace fanatics for fun by night.
There are also a small number of planes that probably would attract a large enough following that stand a chance at being kitted if the blueprints suddenly came available... a couple of legendary WWII warbirds immediately pop into my mind: F-4U Corsair, P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang.
I have no idea about the legal status of the current owners of the F-4U or P-38. Sadly I don't think the P-51 will be among those up for release since as of the late-80s Piper owned the assets of the former North American Aviation and had been revamping the P-51 design as a South American counter-insurgency ground attack plane.
And based upon the flyers I know, I can tell you that the coolness factor of flying into Oshkosh in a shiny new P-38 would attract a lot of manpower.
--Rob
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.
Please, someone mod Nick's comment up!
My exact reaction when I learned of that stupid kid who crashed into the Bank of America was this:-
"What a tragedy. What a waste. That was a practically new aeroplane that could have given pleasure to hundreds of people!"
(The planes at my flying school are relics from the 70s!)
Although I'm from the UK, I read some of the American flying mags and have been following the stupid restrictions on general aviation including the arseholes who wanted to ban it outright. Then there are stupid media reports which say that because a particular plane is of composite construction it's invisible to radar and evil drug smugglers will use them - which has already been thoroughly debunked by the FAA, but stupid people will still believe it and turn against general aviation.
Being at the yoke or stick of a light aircraft is a wonderfully liberating experience, and it pisses me off when people try to spoil it!
"Information wants to be paid"
They almost always are, aren't they? Hell, this time it really was "for the kids".
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Excuse me, but in order to fly a 767, you have to understand the principles of flight, navigation and controls.
Yes, this is true. But aircraft blueprints won't help you with this--you need flight maunals for learning the basics (i.e. the textbooks published by Jeppesen Sandersen, ASA, etc.) and the Pilot's Operating Handbook, Airplane Flight Manual, etc. for aircraft-specific info. The blueprinte will tell you how to build the airplane, not how to fly it. You might also recall that the hijackers took flight instruction; Zacarias Moussaoui (spelling?), the "20th Hijacker" trained just down the street from where I work, at Airman Flight School, in Norman, OK (I work for OU Aviation).
Yes, to fly a 747 and 140mph over VNE takes some skill
Agreed, but not as much as you'd think. If you understand the principles of flight, and have sufficient time (distance) to line up, you could hit a building. I have flown Level D (full-motion) simulators for the T-1, E-3 (B707), and MD11. Both of the larger airplanes are a little sensitive on the roll axis, but with a little practice (~15 minutes), I was shooting instrument approaches. The WTC attack would be relatively easy; the attack on the Pentagon was the impressive one, from a piloting perspective. Also, the airplanes were 757's and 767's, not 747's. VNE on the '5 is 513KIAS, the '6 is 516KIAS; I don't recall hearing that the planes were flying at 650KIAS when they hit, but I might have missed it. That just sounds a bit high to me; the stresses would be tremendous.
Yes aiming an aircraft going over "terminal velocity" into a toothpick in all reality is HARD TO DO.
Yes, it is. Matter of fact, it's impossible.
Terminal Velocity:
Short answer: terminal velocity is the maximum speed you can attain--it is the speed at which the force of drag (roughly proportional to the square of airspeed, without getting into induced and parasite drag) is equal to the force of thrust. At that point, with the forces in equilibrium, acceleration will be zero, and you won't go any faster. To go faster requires more power; when you add power, terminal velocity increases. Terminal velocity is subject to change based on configuration; when you are in stable cruise flight, you are at terminal velocity for that power setting and attitude. Push the throttle forward, or put the nose down, and you are changing configuration, changing your terminal velocity.
Knowing how to use the GPS, knowing how to disable your transponder, knowing how to comminicate with other hijacked craft...
Anyhow, in short, yes, you do need some knowledge of the aircraft systems, but you really don't need any knowledge of the aircraft design to fly. Blueprints aren't going to make one whit of difference in this sort of attack.
By the way, by way of credentials, I'm a Certificated Flight Instructor (soon to be Instrument Instructor as well) with commercial single- and multi-engine ratings, and instrument priviliges in both. (Anybody in the Oklahoma City area looking for flight training, drop me a note :-) )
NOTE: I am employed by the University of Oklahoma, Aviation Department, and by AirOne, Inc These comments are my own, and do not reflect the views of my employers.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca