Disclaimer: this is a brainstorm of ideas on what is practical. I am a free culture advocate. I understand that without invention my own ideals have practical limitations. I don't believe that invention is impractical, however accomplishment without first inventing is.
If any of what is said causes you to question OUR ideals, please meditate on and rationalize what was said: I HOPE YOU DON'T CHANGE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
Please avoid getting triggered, please don't start a flame, and please understand not every issue needs resolution immediately.
Most ideas in this thread will need to be outrageous to be helpful. If everyone disregarded those ideas simply for being outrageous, they will never develop into less outrageous ideas. /end-disclaimer
I was thinking about some of what Luke has said about certification law, and the only way I can rationalize it is to doubt this has been tested in court absent of patents-held.
None of these standards organizations have problems owning patents, only free culture advocates do. Maybe some slight cognitive dissonance is involved (sorry to say so bluntly Luke), but, if these types of precedents are to be held up absent patents-held, that would mean an expansion of standard copyright I don't think many courts would be comfortable with.
At the end of the day, if people can just copy the standard disregarding anyone present as a certification entity, there is no 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, but I know otherwise isn't practical yet. Enter Patent-Left. The hack-solution is to make the standard itself an "open patent license" that if anyone can follow, then they are assumed to possess the license with burden of proof falling on anyone wishing to prove they aren't following it.
This is a hack, because, much like invariant sections in the GDFL, an author can arbitrarily refuse changes to any certain part(s) they choose. How do we capture the moral behind why patents exist, while still honoring free culture? *stop, meditate, write what you think, then keep reading*
vvv *skip this if you careless about learning economics* vvv Perhaps, we can make rules about "contractual equity" so, if someone wants to sell what they make, they pick a currency "declare 'owning' an instance of the license" which only becomes valid after selling "equity" towards a right-to-cancel-the-license to a minimum number of I.D.-ed citizens of a country minting that currency at a minimum price (in technical terms, a minimum market cap per a minimum capita). Oh hell that's messy. Hard to believe that's less messy than the first hack. Let me list the problems with my own proposal. Economically: What/Who determines a fair market cap and a fair minimum capita for a given patentleft license? How do we establish sybil protection across cryptocurrency markets (what "should be" a "citizen" to them?)? Politically: How can a market cap fairly account for currency conversions? How can a person from a country minting a currency with a smaller market exert the same influence over a project as there larger market counterparts? How do people from countries without a national currency even participate, much less equally? How do we prevent citizens from countries with multi-currency systems from getting unfairly punishing or rewarding treatment (if only one currency is recognized, that's punishing, but, if all are recognized, that's rewarding, since there are drawbacks to multi-currency systems [including tangibly devaluing* all currencies involved compared to adopting any one as a single-currency] and those who can choose between currencies exert an influence over what currencies a project uses that others can't)? Is there any way legally possible anywhere to prevent people with multiple citizenships from being able to be counted as that many multiple people? Morally: We would be treating any one individual as not "good enough" to copy/modify a patent unless they have "this" many supporters who are at least "this" economically involved, which is unfair by my morals and, if avoidable, would likely render every other question easily answerable. While associating people with their nation's currencies prevents manipulating the value of currencies they have no stake in, using official documentation associates people with a nation that has chosen them rather than a nation they have chosen, which is unfair by my morals and, if avoidable, would likely render every political question here easily answerable (except that, if someone solves this "hard problem" only in the context of currencies rather than in general, they inherently give money as a concept extra utility, which bothers my personal ethic). If equity is transferable, that would allow individuals who haven't contributed to a project in no way to acquire leverage to make decisions about that project's direction, but, if equity isn't transferable, interest in judging the project from eventually dying (metaphorically and literally) and, while if trade-able then the right-to-cancel-the-license could be as fungible as whatever is traded despite conflicting interests, if not trade-able then there may be little way to gratify or enable those who strive to ensure interest in judging a project doesn't die (metaphorically and literally) (except that, even if a messy hack protects a project with trade-able equity towards right-to-cancel-the-license from conflicting interests, using money to enable without gratifying a receiver is a classic "hard problem" in economics which is the root cause and would bother my personal ethic to see ignored).
* Tangible Value: a Bayesian sum* of the items on a Bayesian list** of all that a currency could buy which one could sue discrimination if denied sale, counting every item on that list as a fraction of an item divided by the number of currencies it's legally guaranteed a right-of-sale. * Bayesian sums treat all that is different as different regardless of how different. ** Bayesian lists treat any number of identical items as that many different items. ^^^ *end skip* ^^^
IMO, a clean solution: greatly motivates forming large/complex cooperatives while not requiring the participation of more than one individual; guarantees that trust in a project comes from authority on that project and authority on a project comes from research of that project; all while ensuring attention to a project is proportional to trust in that project.
Please have some helpful input/feedback. Thank you in advance. If in doubt, post away anyway: I won't fault you!
Just two questions (without carefully reading all that you wrote):
* what country do you live in?
* if not the US, does the country you live in have a body of trademark law?
I suppose you really only need to answer the 2nd for now.
On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 07:49:06 AM Jean Flamelle wrote:
Disclaimer: this is a brainstorm of ideas on what is practical. I am a free culture advocate. I understand that without invention my own ideals have practical limitations. I don't believe that invention is impractical, however accomplishment without first inventing is.
On 2/21/18, rhkramer@gmail.com rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
Just two questions (without carefully reading all that you wrote):
what country do you live in?
if not the US, does the country you live in have a body of trademark
law?
I suppose you really only need to answer the 2nd for now.
Yes
@Adam, I may be wrong but I believe that would require a massive "all 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). If there aren't enough EOMA cards in a market for people to become familiar with the certification, before they start trying to copy it without the certification or with their own made up certifications.
I hope no one does that, but I think it'd be foolish to assume no one will.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com 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.
On 2/24/18, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net 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.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com 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 :)
I never doubted you about the dangers.
... big responsibility, ehn?
l.
On February 21, 2018 7:49:06 AM EST, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
None of these standards organizations have problems owning patents, only free culture advocates do. Maybe some slight cognitive dissonance is involved (sorry to say so bluntly Luke), but, if these types of precedents are to be held up absent patents-held, that would mean an expansion of standard copyright I don't think many courts would be comfortable with.
At the end of the day, if people can just copy the standard disregarding anyone present as a certification entity, there is no 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, but I know otherwise isn't practical yet.
Anyone can make an EOMA card, just like you can make a USB device or PCI Express card. However you cannot use the EOMA certification mark without Luke's permission.
Just like you can't use the USB certification mark (that little USB Compatible sticker you see on the box of any USB peripheral) without the permission of the USB authority.
This is done to protect consumers. If something bears the certification mark of a standard, then you as a consumer can be confident that it is compatible with the standard, that it will work with your other USB devices or your existing EOMA enclosure.
It's the same as the free software foundations Respects Your Freedom mark. You need the permission of the FSF to use that mark. This protects consumer because they can see that mark and be confident that the device respects their freedoms.
This is why Luke is very vocal about protecting the EOMA mark. If a bunch of projects are built that purport to be EOMA compatible devices, and they end up being incompatible or worse dangerous, it will make the EOMA certification mark useless and destroy the reputation of the project as a whole, stopping any hope of EOMA having the global impact were aiming for.
First impressions are everything in technology. If rumours start that EOMA cards aren't as compatible as advertised or are dangerous, most people will write off the project in their minds as a failure and never look at it again.
You don't need anyone's permission to follow a standard, you do need their permission to market yourself as having done so. This protects consumers and IMO is a good thing.
I like the confidence the RYF mark gives me when I'm shopping for electronics.
I think there's some misconceptions about what Luke is trying to prevent.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Adam Van Ymeren adam@vany.ca 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.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 09:13:11AM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Adam Van Ymeren adam@vany.ca 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
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
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.
... *thinks*.... ok so let's think this through.
what do proprietary companies owning Certification Marks do.... o arse, you're right: they charge staggeringly-large amounts of money and place huge burdens on people. FCC 2G/3G/LTE Certification (per firmware revision, per product, per *version* of product, per *company* e.g. AT&T... $50k *EACH*...), BLE Certification (USD $10,000 per software release *per factory*), and so on.
that's gonna get really old, really quickly.
i know that the FSF, whom people are in effect "Authorised to Represent" when they received the RYF Endorsement Certification Mark, simply trust people to "get it right". they *don't* ask that people "re-certify", they said to me, basically, "you represent us and our good name, don't screw up by doing things like add proprietary firmware on it, or modify the description so people get confused and buy the wrong thing".
they *didn't* say "You Must Re-Certify If You Make Even One Tiny Change".
so i believe there's room for both types of approaches... the question is: which approach could risk causing harm? btw, just to be clear: anyone who *guarantees* full libre compliance (releases everything under libre licenses - casework, CAD, source, everything) zero charges *and* assistance in any way possible.
l.
On 2/25/18, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
... *thinks*.... ok so let's think this through.
what do proprietary companies owning Certification Marks do.... o arse, you're right: they charge staggeringly-large amounts of money and place huge burdens on people. FCC 2G/3G/LTE Certification (per firmware revision, per product, per *version* of product, per *company* e.g. AT&T... $50k *EACH*...), BLE Certification (USD $10,000 per software release *per factory*), and so on.
I heard that's what keeps fairphone out of the US.
that's gonna get really old, really quickly.
Already has for me tbh xD
-
i know that the FSF, whom people are in effect "Authorised to Represent" when they received the RYF Endorsement Certification Mark,
That gets to an interesting idea of patent-left: what-if anyone receiving certification to use a hypothetical "left"-patent, was as a condition of the license allowed to certify anyone else irrevocably unless their use or use of anyone directly certified or endorsed by them, causes proven harm with their use to anyone emotionally, physically, or socially---aside from game-theory-arbitrary conflict that just happens to involve an instance of the patent's use through no fault of the implementation. Sounds like MLM.
We could actually add that if the patent is used without license it's only violated if said harm is done, except burden of proof them shifts to the person using the patent to demonstrate no harm was done (including to the licensor-network which may have been convinced waste excessively taxing effort to ensure the implementation didn't cause harm which could have been dedicated elsewhere protecting public trust from damage that was indeed caused prove-ably because the community was too focused on a false alarm which could have reasonably been avoided).
I hope that idea is less dense than the economic one earlier.
"~
simply trust people to "get it right". they *don't* ask that people "re-certify", they said to me, basically, "you represent us and our good name, don't screw up by doing things like add proprietary firmware on it, or modify the description so people get confused and buy the wrong thing".
~"
I like this
they *didn't* say "You Must Re-Certify If You Make Even One Tiny Change".
*thumbs up*
so i believe there's room for both types of approaches... the question is: which approach could risk causing harm? btw, just to be clear: anyone who *guarantees* full libre compliance (releases everything under libre licenses - casework, CAD, source, everything) zero charges *and* assistance in any way possible.
I think there is too, though I hope to make the ever more communal option safer and easier to protect legally with this brainstorm. That's still a longterm goal. We can always run the risk of being too strict and loosen the way we do things later, so long as you, RMS, and the entirety of the FSF stick to their guns (morals).
(which should that even be a question at this point?) It's like asking if someone with endorsement from peta will ever start killing animals for sport. (maybe because somewhere down the line they started to blindly assume humane population control strategies will never succeed)
Sure its happened before, but the question asks the probability of a scenario so rare requiring so much conspiracy that it borders upon irritating even the most pragmatic actor.
Thank you to Luke and everyone contributing to make this all happen btw.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
and place huge burdens on people. FCC 2G/3G/LTE Certification (per firmware revision, per product, per *version* of product, per *company* e.g. AT&T... $50k *EACH*...), BLE Certification (USD $10,000 per software release *per factory*), and so on.
I heard that's what keeps fairphone out of the US.
motorola got round it by *WRITING* the FCC tests... and charging themselves half the fees (*only* $25k per product per version per firmware-release per network).
whereas every other company would go after world networks and finally return to the US, motorola instead went the other way round precisely because it's so hard everyone else stays clear.
that's gonna get really old, really quickly.
Already has for me tbh xD
nnnnngh :)
i know that the FSF, whom people are in effect "Authorised to Represent" when they received the RYF Endorsement Certification Mark,
That gets to an interesting idea of patent-left: what-if anyone receiving certification to use a hypothetical "left"-patent, was as a condition of the license allowed to certify anyone else irrevocably unless their use or use of anyone directly certified or endorsed by them, causes proven harm with their use to anyone emotionally, physically, or socially---aside from game-theory-arbitrary conflict that just happens to involve an instance of the patent's use through no fault of the implementation. Sounds like MLM.
yehyeh :) ok i'll have to think this through. my initial reaction is, manufacturers absolutely not, end-users *maybe*. actual patents: almost certainly not. people genuinely hate them with a vengeance such that it *doesn't matter* if it's a workable idea. also, patents are not the right vehicle (and are stupidly expensive to register)
so i believe there's room for both types of approaches... the question is: which approach could risk causing harm? btw, just to be clear: anyone who *guarantees* full libre compliance (releases everything under libre licenses - casework, CAD, source, everything) zero charges *and* assistance in any way possible.
I think there is too, though I hope to make the ever more communal option safer and easier to protect legally with this brainstorm. That's still a longterm goal. We can always run the risk of being too strict and loosen the way we do things later, so long as you, RMS, and the entirety of the FSF stick to their guns (morals).
yehyeh.
(which should that even be a question at this point?)
well, the question is: what would happen such that i would be willing to throw away (waste) the efforts of seven years of my life (so far)? a billion dollars with no conditions / strings attached (no non-compete clauses so i could start again immediately) would probably do it...
It's like asking if someone with endorsement from peta will ever start killing animals for sport. (maybe because somewhere down the line they started to blindly assume humane population control strategies will never succeed)
yeh you can never say never: remember, "certainty is a pathological state of mind"
Thank you to Luke and everyone contributing to make this all happen btw.
thx jean.
l.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com 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@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Adam Van Ymeren -
Hendrik Boom -
Jean Flamelle -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
rhkramer＠gmail.com