| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 15.07.20 18:40l 962 Lines 41760 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB15257
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V15 257
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IR1UAW<IK1NHL<CX2SA
Sent: 200715/1634Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:35009 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB15257
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Candidate for BOD (Bob Hammond)
2. Re: Candidate for BOD (Steve Kristoff)
3. Re: AMSAT Open Source Policy (Joseph Armbruster)
4. Re: Who I?m NOT Voting For (Short) (Mike Diehl)
5. Re: Who I'm voting for (long) (Robert Bankston)
6. Re: Who I'm voting for (long) (Jeff Davis)
7. Re: Who I?m NOT Voting For (Short) (Greg)
8. Re: AMSAT IP (Michelle Thompson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 06:12:18 -0700
From: Bob Hammond <propgrinder@?????.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Candidate for BOD
Message-ID:
<CAKoB7OrKT8YfcXwAq3McLtWmhdUEQ4T=3qo7Ls4Kx35Q+OQKWg@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Howie,
I'd like a bit more background, please. What do you do in real life?
Employment, education, etc?
Bob W7OTJ
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:53 AM Howie DeFelice via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
> My name is Howie DeFelice, callsign AB2S and I am currently a second
> alternate director in AMSAT. I am running to seek a term as a full member
> of the Board of Directors. I ran for the office of director last year
> because I felt AMSAT needed some new blood with some new ideas. As an
> alternate director I got to observe from the sidelines, at least as much as
> I could since regular board meetings were suspended for the first time in
> the organization's history. I?m afraid my worst fears were true and the
> leadership of AMSAT really is a ?good ole boys club?. When new people
> became part of the organization last year it went into hibernation mode.
> This effectively froze any possible new ideas that were different from the
> legacy members? long held beliefs. The only way forward for the
> organization is to change the composition of the board of directors. I
> would like to outline some of the small things that can be done that could
> have a positive impact on the organization. More information is available
> on my web site www.ab2s.freeservers.com<http://www.ab2s.freeservers.com> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:37:06 -0400
From: "Steve Kristoff" <skristof@???????.???>
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Candidate for BOD
Message-ID: <a8128d5d8ed34595d70f6ee746d6d78f@???????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
A quick Google search came up with this:
https://perens.com/static/AMSAT/Candidate%20Statement%20HD.pdf
Steve AI9IN
?
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Hammond via AMSAT-BB (amsat-bb@?????.????
Date: 07/15/20 09:14
To: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Candidate for BOD
Howie,
I'd like a bit more background, please. ?What do you do in real life?
Employment, education, etc?
Bob W7OTJ
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:53 AM Howie DeFelice via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:22:07 -0400
From: Joseph Armbruster <josepharmbruster@?????.???>
To: Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
Cc: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>, "Stephen E. Belter"
<seb@??????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT Open Source Policy
Message-ID:
<CADkz4c84Fai5VG694jL+pvhP9jiFz0vmMojsSxfL9B3qS2GULg@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Bruce,
You did not really answer the first question: "How does AMSAT benefit
by pursuing an open source policy?" The question is really unrelated
to EAR/ITAR. What i'm wondering is, if AMSAT published all of its
hardware and software designs for everything, how does this benefit
AMSAT? This is probably the most important question from an
organizational standpoint.
I had been through a similar discussion with a private company that I
worked for about a 3D visualization / Earth rendering product that was
developed by the company. It was a product that was similar to Google
Earth and could easily compete with it from a rendering / efficiency /
user experience standpoint. The question was: Do we open source the
software and give it out to the world to attract more people to the
product / generate a new ecosystem for publicity, or do we keep it
closed and generate revenue off custom software services. The company
chose option 2. The bottom line was, if we put all the source out in
the open, most engineering types would not pay us anything, even if we
did an open/commercial licensing scheme. Because, let's be honest,
generally speaking, no-one wants to pay for anything, and that is
especially true in the OSS world. And even when you ask people to pay
for something, they find clever ways to work around licensing and rip
you off. I think consulting services become more practical, when the
technology that is being utilized is more technically challenging and
there are deadlines involved. That's why certain OSS products can use
that model (of course, there are not many consulting opportunities for
libtiff know-how :-).
One comment on what you said about GPL "you use the GPL where you want
companies to participate more, rather than just take your stuff and
modify it in private, never returning anything." This is a common
misunderstanding / mis-representation of what the GPL does. Companies
are not required to 'return anything'. It only protects the rights of
down-stream recipients, not up-stream. Examples in case others
reading are not aware of this:
- If an organization downloads, compiles and integrates a GPL
libWhatever onto a chip in a satellite and the satellite is launched
into space, there is no downstream recipient of the binaries. The
changes can remain within the private organization ad-infinitum. The
hardware floats around in a vaccum, maybe burns up in the atmosphere
and we end up breathing it, outside of that, nothing needs to be given
back to the community.
- If I download, compile and integrate a GPL libWhatever onto a chip
and then deliver the binary to say a University team for integration
or to a customer for use. Then, the University team or customer has a
Right to be able to edit the source, etc... Their rights to
edit/modify are protected. But, that still doesn't mean the creator
of libWhatever is guaranteed to receive anything back.
AMSAT could establish an open source policy that would only provide
licensed code to parties/organizations that agreed to integrate
according to their terms and conditions. These terms and conditions
could be contingent upon AMSAT being a downstream-recipient of the
software/hardware source/designs (work-products, etc...) This would
establish a symbiotic relationship between AMSAT and others with
mutual benefit. Others wish to utilize AMSATs software/hardware
stack, integration know-how, etc... and AMSAT would be guaranteed to
be on the receiving end of the changes. AMSAT could also establish
something like others have, where they have a licensed version that is
not-permitted-to-fly and a "Pay-For" version that allows you to fly
it. It's an interesting idea and along the lines of what several
other OSS projects do with dual oss, commercial options.
On the whole protesting of ITAR/EAR and Defense Distributed, when you
say the Federal Government lost, from a practical standpoint, that's
not really true. Legal hardship is real. The end result was a
private organization, unnecessarily being jerked around by the fed in
a politically-motivated legal attack. And then, being jerked-around
again, by several states. That cost them and it is still costing
them, time and money. The organization could not function during that
period and is now forced to function differently. Rules were
re-written by the DOS, there was an ad-hoc "settlement" including an
'exclusive license'. Isn't that awesome that a company is given an
'exclusive license' after being jerked around vs, just being left
alone in the first place? Also, Defcad requires you to create a
login, submit Personally Identifiiable info (PII) to them (ID,
etc...), etc... before you download anything from them. That's, NOT
Open. I am not certain what they would do if a non-US Person
attempted to sign up. It's antithetical to a true, public open source
process really. If anything, this case is a shining example of why an
organization Should:
i) be very selective about what is publicized
ii) work very cautiously with others in a way that reduces risk
Basically, how AMSAT appears to operate right now. Why? Because if
the wrong politically-motivated person in the Department of Whatever
(or friend of a girlfriend of a mistress of whomever) gets an itch,
they can make your life a living hell. And, while they sit back and
collect a paycheck and have their pension well-funded during that time
frame... You're left with a ruling in your favor (yaay!) but
financially strapped, physically deteriorated due the stress and
likely out of business. This doesn't just happen in the ITAR realm
either, look at what happened to the buckyballs company that sold the
little magnets that you could build little structures out of. They
got dragged through the mud for years, for literally selling little
round magnets...
Joseph Armbruster
KJ4JIO
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:20 PM Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???> wrote:
>
> Michelle, working for ORI, hired a lawyer to take up the ITAR matter with
the Federal Government, so she probably has some interesting information.
>
> I have left your questions in, so that this will make sense to readers.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:08 PM Joseph Armbruster
<josepharmbruster@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>> 1) How does AMSAT benefit by pursuing an open source policy?
>
>
> Both ITAR and EAR have a carve-out regarding published research. EAR says
that things you publish on the Internet are not subject to the EAR. ITAR is
a bit more difficult, they want you to publish it in a journal or put it in
a library. There are lots of friendly college libraries who will put a
blu-ray disk on a shelf for you. And then, you don't have to deal with ITAR
regarding any digital data. You still have ITAR problems if you wish to ship
a satellite across a national border, so it is best to fabricate it in the
nation where it will be launched. And you must never provide defense
services, not even to the USA. That means if someone you know is clearly
working on a defense project asks a question on your mailing list, you need
to explain nicely that they should get that information elsewhere because it
would get you in trouble. And then tell the government. I think the last one
I dealt with was from a defense company in Pakistan asking about Codec2. The
government says thank
you for reporting this, it's important, but doesn't tell us any more.
>
> The whole Open Source community operates this way, and has no problem with
ITAR. They are much bigger than AMSAT. And they make AI, cryptography, and
many other things that are listed on the United States Munitions List.
>
>> 2) What are the disadvantages of AMSAT pursuing an open source policy?
>
>
> It's really difficult to see any at this late date. Michelle and I have
been to NASA meetings where it is really clear that they embrace Open Source
internally. So does SpaceX, ULA less but Tory (CEO) is very easy to talk
with. ESA is all over Open Source and there is a Librespace guy in European
Central Bank who can make introductions for us. Legally, we could even
cooperate with nations on the embargoed list, but at that point I would want
explicit permission, no need to antagonize the government just because the
law allows you to do something.
>
>> 3) Say a new project was about to start, where should all the design
>> files, source code files, presentations, virtual machines, etc...
>> live?
>
>
> It's really easy to put everything on Github or Gitlab, in public mode. I
wrote a script that mirrors ORI's github repositories to its own server, and
we can just burn a disc from that and put it in a library.
>
>> 4) What license would the items be released under (this one will be
>> interesting to me)?
>
>
> The important thing is that everyone have the right to read. Then, you
satisfy the requirements in the ITAR and EAR carve-outs, if you also publish
it on the internet and make it available in a library. Libraries often have
web terminals, so I think that Internet is enough, but getting a library to
host a disc is easy. So even a Creative Commons license would be adequate,
but I suggest BSD if you want it to be available for commercial use without
getting modifications returned to the community, or GPL if you would rather
have modifications returned to the community. This is a short explanation of
Open Source licensing, and I could go into subtleties at length.
>
> I generally prefer that hardware designs be placed in the public domain.
Currently hardware is dubiously copyrightable due to 17 USC 102(b) and court
cases I could discuss at length too. It is not to our advantage for courts
to take our own example of attempting to copyright hardware designs and
decide that hardware designs are actually copyrightable.
>
>> 4.a) Will the license be Free in a FreeRTOS or CGAL sortof way, where
>> it's free for non-commercial use?
>
>
> You can do that, since it is only necessary that it not be trade secret.
But everyone else doing this goes 100% Open Source, and we want to be able
to share their work and have them share ours. The fact that AMSAT-EA works
with Librespace and AMSAT-NA does not is suboptimal.
>
>> 5) How can satellite security be mitigated if the source is in the
>> public domain?
>
>
> You mean command and control? The simplest answer is that you use
encryption to command the satellite, and you don't have to publish your
cryptographic key. It's data, not the software. However, I have a design for
terrestrial cryptographic signature that fits the FCC rules that prohibit
cryptography that obscures the message. Digital signature does not obscure
the message, it just authenticates it.
>
> AMSAT used to use a secret data word and exclusive-OR to encrypt
communications.Very primitive and implemented in discrete logic chips. This
is explicitly permitted by FCC for satellites rather than terrestrial ham
radio. I would hope that we could do digital signature today.
>
> > 6) Are you satisfied with the way AMSAT development currently takes
place or do you feel there is a need to change development practices?
>
> My personal opinion is that a lot of the ITAR mess we are currently in
would go away if AMSAT went to a 100% Open Source policy like most of the
newer Amateur Space organizations. Unfortunately, we have engaged ITAR
attorneys who have only worked with proprietary companies, where trade
secret is necessary, and thus ITAR must apply. Open Source is new to them.
>
> One of the most difficult jobs of a manager is managing legal counsel.
Most managers don't understand what counsel is saying OR what questions to
ask. And I have seen few managers that are equipped to push back or who even
understand that pushing back is possible. Sometimes you have to bring your
lawyer into new areas they have never explored - although that is less so
than 20 years ago when Open Source was new, and they are very likely to give
you the determinations that they made for some proprietary corporation which
are entirely wrong for your public benefit non-profit.
>
> In my consulting business, which mainly services law firms and their
customers, I have met many attorneys who are up to speed on Open Source and
intellectual property. There are fewer attorneys who are up to speed on Open
Source and ITAR, and I would spend some time with them to discuss the issues.
>
>>
>> 7) Do you think AMSAT would benefit by adopting an open source policy
>> where all materials are placed in the public domain?
>
>
> There are two "public domains". There is public domain in the sense of
copyright abandonment and patent and copyright expiration, and then ITAR 121
uses the words "public domain" to mean "public knowledge". In general most
Open Source communities do not use public domain, because the laws of many
nations, including the United States, do not actually define that an
affirmative dedication of a work to the public domain has legal meaning.
They define public domain only in the sense of copyright and patent
expiration. So, we have contrivances like the CC0 license to work around
that, which is a public domain declaration if the national law and court
likes that, but a liberal license otherwise. But most Open Source teams
would choose a very liberal license like the BSD, where the only real
requirements are that you preserve attribution (and everyone likes
attribution) and the license text. Or, you use the GPL where you want
companies to participate more, rather than just take your stuff
and modify it in private, never returning anything.
>
>> 8) Can you see any landmines or pitfalls from doing so (technical,
>> legal, etc...)?
>
>
> I really put myself out there trying to attract the attention of the
Federal Government in protesting ORI's ITAR/EAR policy, and got no interest.
This may have been because of the Defense Distributed case, which was about
gun plans online, and I don't want to get into a 2nd amendment discussion,
but once the Federal Government lost that they didn't have much to go after
_us_ about.
>
> The landmine is that if you need lawyers. If you don't do this, you also
need lawyers :-)
>
>> I wanted to ask about this, since it's mentioned constantly, but
>> OpenSource is a reasonably loose term that means different strokes to
>> different folks.
>
>
> The Open Source Definition at Opensource.org is the one I wrote.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
> --
> Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is eventually
:-)
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:17:03 -0400
From: Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@?????.???>
To: Clint Bradford <clintbradford@???.???>
Cc: amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Who I?m NOT Voting For (Short)
Message-ID: <16976F65-3803-4B8C-9A6E-5FF6EC1DBE92@?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Clint,
No need to send screenshots, everyone can just use the Wayback Machine here
http://web.archive.org/web/20181227011914/http://work-sats.com/
73,
Mike Diehl
W8LID/VE6LID
> On Jul 15, 2020, at 10:10, Clint Bradford via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
> ?Patrick and Jeff created a Web site In 2018 using my Web site?s name -
but added the plural of my work-sat.com - they used ?Sats.?
>
> The site was solely created to demean myself and Gordon West. The posts
were obscene, vile, insulting, and vicious in their attacks. Most of their
posts are too objectionable to post on a public forum like this: posts like
two rats fornicating and writing that my satellite inquiry phone number of
800-999-SATS could also use the alpha characters, 800-999-RATS.
>
> If anyone is interested in reading screenshots of their work, I will
privately email them to you.
>
> Stoddard and Johns will not be receiving my vote.
>
> Clint Bradford K6LCS
> 909-999-SATS
>
> PS They let the GoDaddy domain name expire after a year. I registered it
immediately - and it is now redirected to my site.
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:29:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Robert Bankston <ke4al@?????.???>
To: AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Who I'm voting for (long)
Message-ID: <1926115224.2079076.1594826975685@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Bruce,
??
I see you "borrowed" your retort from Patrick's misleading "directors"
report on his personal website.? I would think someone as learned as you
would at least provide the proper citation.
??
<AMSAT presidents in their annual reports at AMSATs own meetings have been
really grim about AMSAT's finances>
??
You are confusing projected budgetary deficits, with actual financial
performance. This is a common mistake for individuals without business and
nonprofit backgrounds, and why I devoted my time in time in the May/June
2020 issue of The AMSAT Journal to fully explain this.
??
<I also hear that around the start of April, you reported "Without cash
flows, we (AMSAT) can't afford to pay our bills.">
??
Patrick purposefully took this quote out of context, when he secretly
recorded the AMSAT Board of Directors meeting.? If Patrick would have shared
the entire conversation, your would know that we were discussing the
economic uncertainty at the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.?
??
No one knew at that point what effect the coronavirus would have on our
economy and still do not fully know today.? So, yes, I was concerned about
cash flows and having access to our accounts, just as every for profit and
nonprofit business in the World was.? I would have been derelict in my
duties as AMSAT Treasurer to not advise our Board of Directors of this
threat and recommend a course of action. To say otherwise is disingenuous.
??
I am happy to share that through our preemptive actions and the hard work of
our Officers and volunteers, we have weathered the storm.? Our biggest
concern was with the cancellation of Hamvention, where a large part of our
membership stop by the booth, catch up with everything going on, and pay
their annual dues.? Luckily, with the May 1st launch of our new Member
Portal, AMSAT achieved a record amount of monthly membership revenues in May.
??
Robert Bankston, KE4AL
Treasurer
Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT)
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 09:38:13 PM CDT, Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???>
wrote:
Robert,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:58 PM Robert Bankston via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>??I know you only show up at election time
Snark if you want, but I am working on Amateur Space quite often. My latest
was the pocketqube ion thruster project,
see?http://perens.com/static/AppliedIon/
where my work successfully raised the necessary funds and got the project on
its feet again.?
>??AMSAT is on a solid financial footing and headed in the right direction.?
Well, that is wonderful. But you must understand where my trepidation about
AMSAT's finances comes from, since AMSAT presidents in their annual reports
at AMSATs own meetings have been really grim about AMSAT's?finances.
I also hear that around the start of April, you reported "Without cash
flows, we (AMSAT) can't afford to pay our bills." At which point AMSAT
applied for the government salary protection program. That is after the
report you just cited, isn't it? We are all suffering from COVID-19 related
austerity, and we can expect AMSAT to lose funds that it would have received
around conferences, etc., so best wishes with that.
? ? Thanks
? ? Bruce
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:39:31 -0400
From: Jeff Davis <jeffrey.davis@???.???>
To: Robert Bankston <ke4al@?????.???>, AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Who I'm voting for (long)
Message-ID: <50AC0D87-2354-41BD-AAF6-8E4396CCC570@???.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Excellent!
> On Jul 15, 2020, at 11:29 AM, Robert Bankston via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
> Luckily, with the May 1st launch of our new Member Portal, AMSAT achieved
a record amount of monthly membership revenues in May.
>
> Robert Bankston, KE4AL
> Treasurer
> Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT)
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:15:05 -0400
From: Greg <almetco@???????.???>
To: Mike Diehl <diehl.mike.a@?????.???>
Cc: Clint Bradford <clintbradford@???.???>, amsat-bb@?????.???
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Who I?m NOT Voting For (Short)
Message-ID: <C607803B-B3B5-4A79-B5A0-07229862539D@???????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
LID/LCS
Wow, that is so chidish it borders on issues with emotional IQ ?glad you
brought that to my attention because it will influence my vote..
N3MVF
On Jul 15, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Mike Diehl via AMSAT-BB <amsat-bb@?????.???>
wrote:
Clint,
No need to send screenshots, everyone can just use the Wayback Machine here
http://web.archive.org/web/20181227011914/http://work-sats.com/
73,
Mike Diehl
W8LID/VE6LID
> On Jul 15, 2020, at 10:10, Clint Bradford via AMSAT-BB
<amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>
> ?Patrick and Jeff created a Web site In 2018 using my Web site?s name -
but added the plural of my work-sat.com - they used ?Sats.?
>
> The site was solely created to demean myself and Gordon West. The posts
were obscene, vile, insulting, and vicious in their attacks. Most of their
posts are too objectionable to post on a public forum like this: posts like
two rats fornicating and writing that my satellite inquiry phone number of
800-999-SATS could also use the alpha characters, 800-999-RATS.
>
> If anyone is interested in reading screenshots of their work, I will
privately email them to you.
>
> Stoddard and Johns will not be receiving my vote.
>
> Clint Bradford K6LCS
> 909-999-SATS
>
> PS They let the GoDaddy domain name expire after a year. I registered it
immediately - and it is now redirected to my site.
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@?????.???. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:15:00 -0700
From: Michelle Thompson <mountain.michelle@?????.???>
To: Scott McDonald <ka9p@???.???>
Cc: Amsat BB <AMSAT-BB@?????.???>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] AMSAT IP
Message-ID:
<CACvjz2X3JB0aKPOJMMoyAgk6=pp8iey_pK5ov7yKQijeGtqvzQ@????.?????.???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I'm so glad you asked about this.
I will outline the steps that several teams of people have taken over time
to identify and explain risk, get buy-in, and proactively do things to get
people trained up and manage multiple issues.
Phil Karn, Bruce Perens, Robert McGwier, and many others, have brought up
IP and ITAR/EAR risk management strategies, primarily Open Source, to the
board, at Symposium, and in public, for over a decade. They have spoken at
conferences, held workshops, written emails, and pointed out that specific
failures would have been prevented with something more than "Um, I guess
hide it because ITAR".
I put together a team to propose a specific IT product to comply with a
specific set of ITAR/EAR implementation guidelines. We wrote a presentation
and submitted it to the board in late 2017.
You can read it here:
https://github.com/phase4ground/documents/blob/master/Papers_Articles_Presenta
tions/Slide_Presentations/20171208_GitHubEnterpriseProposal.pdf
Six highly qualified people signed the proposal, there was enthusiasm from
rank and file engineers, and surely we would get to call in to a board
meeting, answer questions, or record a video presentation.
Well, months went by. I asked about it. Joe Spier said there had already
been a vote. Total rejection, just too expensive, unnecessary.
The cost of GitHub Enterprise for AMSAT comes in a bit less than the cost
of the Wild Apricot subscription for our online member portal. I don't
think it's too expensive to dramatically reduce liability and personal risk
to volunteers, but the board apparently unanimously disagreed.
Later on, though, this vote didn't appear in the minutes. I started to
doubt it ever really happened.
When I asked about whether the vote really happened, I was taunted for
"never even having bothered to run for the board".
Ok, so I guess I have to run for the board to get quality policy work
considered. I did, I won, and the new contract and retainer for FD
Associates to review an actual honest to God ITAR/EAR *policy* has been
*sitting on Clayton's desk for weeks*. Clayton designated me as the person
to get this done and defended me against angry howls of protest from some
long-timers on the board.
Good news? I have almost all of this work done. I want FD Associates to
review it and advise. Clayton, send the contract and retainer back to FD
Associates.
If we don't use our qualified volunteers, unless they're on the board, that
makes for very very slow progress on, well, anything.
Bill Reed submitted his name for consideration as AMSAT President in 2019
with one plank in his platform. "Produce a written ITAR/EAR policy for
AMSAT within three months. If I fail, I resign." This policy would include
the public domain carve-out from ITAR 120.11.
I nominated Bill Reed when Joe Spier resigned. I circulated his resume,
with involvement from early missions up to GOLF, and explained why I
thought he'd be successful and bridge some divides.
He lost 3-4, to Clayton Coleman, who was a Secretary and Director for the
preceding term.
Jan King came to the 2019 Symposium. He spoke to the board, was a dinner
speaker, and had a speaking slot. He stood up in front of the entire
organization and said he regretted not going open source. It steered AMSAT
wrong. He said it was a mistake, and we shouldn't be making it again going
forward. I nearly fell out of my seat. He spoke more pointedly to the
board, echoing almost word for word things that many of us have been saying
for years.
Jan King departed the ASCENT team when Jerry Buxton affirmed that it was
going to be proprietary ITAR. Repeated attempts to get him to come back
didn't work. Bill Tynan brought it up over and over.
It's unfair to speak for him, but I think maybe you can add Jan King to the
list of people that have tried very hard to change the direction of the
organization and are now doing other things with their time rather than
work under FUD.
No action was taken after hearing from Jan King at Symposium.
I was invited to lead the open source ground station team for AMSAT in
2015. We brought in $300,000 of in-kind and cash donations, quickly built
up 40 engineers, and started producing open source work for "five and
dime". I presented the work, promoted the team, they did amazing, lots of
articles were written, several significant donations of IP came in, and we
started getting traction. This was very openly Open Source. In early 2018,
Joe Spier called me to insist that "working in 10GHz as open source is
illegal". I said no, it wasn't, and we would not be going to go closed
source, because that meant complying with commercial or proprietary ITAR
rules, and 25% of our team would vanish and the costs to comply would take
our entire technical budget.
Joe Spier didn't say much to this, but he did shut down this project
without communication or warning while I was on vacation in March 2018. He
claimed to others that he deleted the entire email archive, and I was told
AMSAT would keep all the donations.
Fortunately none of the work was lost and continues today. It did take a
team to set up an entirely new corporate structure and file for a 501c3 and
get solid policies written to properly protect the volunteers that AMSAT
dumped on the floor. I could have used the time and energy for AMSAT. I was
all in. And still am, despite being treated like garbage by people that
don't know ITAR from IZOD.
I think it's clear that the work is appreciated and desired in the
community. It's offered back to AMSAT without strings attached or any hard
feelings.
One big piece of work done for AMSAT's benefit is the filing of a Commodity
Jurisdiction request to the State Department to free open source microwave
band digital payload work from ITAR. This was filed February 2020. It's
working its way through the system now.
AMSAT has never done this. They really should have, years ago.
AMSAT was asked, repeatedly, to join this effort. By paper letter, by
appeal at Symposium, by open letter on the web, and by personal appeals to
whoever would listen. AMSAT completely ignored this effort. However, they
are the single greatest beneficiary of any result that comes from it.
Negative means an appeal, but that AMSAT has to actually implement ITAR
policies. Hence the work with FD Associates.
Positive means huge relief. Somewhere in between, plenty good there too.
Yes, the incumbents, running yet again for another term, ignored this
effort completely. But, the team I recruited still got it done.
As hard as I and many others have worked to bring the completely
world-changing practice of open source engineering to AMSAT, which would
quite bluntly save the day, my question to you is this.
Is the current leadership team really valuable to AMSAT?
How many more years would you like all of us to be ignored, excluded, and
attacked when we "ask nicely"?
-Michelle W5NYV
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 22:06 Scott McDonald <ka9p@???.???> wrote:
> Michelle, I understand your points.
>
> But the solution in real life is rarely to toss out the existing team.
> You might get a manager fired, but the team is too valuable.
>
> If you see something, say something. So far so good. But then identify
> and explain the risk, get buy-in and proactively do something to get
> everyone trained to respect and manage the issue.
>
> In my experience re-elected board members tend to find a way to make good
> things happen, even against the odds.
>
> Scott Ka9p
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 14, 2020, at 11:15 PM, Michelle Thompson <
> mountain.michelle@?????.???> wrote:
>
> ?
> Since we are talking about IP, let me turn your attention to some actual
> problems with intellectual property management at AMSAT.
>
> For example, an entire custom set of HDL cores, donated to AMSAT by
> Comtech/AHA, was lost. The NDA was neglected and literally lost until I
> brought it up. I insisted Joe Spier go find it for the 2019 annual meeting.
>
> Worse, the license for the community accessible version with GNU Radio
> simply not managed. That community totally lost out on something that was
> supposed to come to them through this work.
>
> This entire block of IP was simply squandered. Did someone end up with it
> that should not have? Because it helps digital modes, was it just
> gobblygook to engineering leadership?
>
> If we can't manage this type of data, then how do you think we are doing
> managing more important things with harsher repercussions?
>
> Unlike files that describe a toy plastic model, this was advanced error
> correcting and control code, designed for space applications, that actually
> put us well ahead of many chip manufacturers at the time.
>
> If you want this sort of waste to change, then please vote for Howie
> DeFelice, Jeff Johns, and Robert McGwier.
>
> Why? Because the incumbents blindly support the officers that lost this
> IP, and will simply re-appoint all of those officers if they win.
>
> AMSAT got this gift, primarily because of Robert McGwier. One of his
> students spent the summer doing the work with AHA mentoring him.
>
> Howie DeFelice works in the commercial satellite world and would simply
> never let valuable IP walk out the door or fall on the floor.
>
> Jeff Johns is a trained consultant in quality and accountability systems.
> People like him annoy the tar out of me at work because I can't get away
> with flushing IP down a toilet or giving it to my friends in violation of
> an NDA.
>
> Yes, I'm headstrong. But I'm not stupid. Problems like this are what we
> should be caring about and voting on, instead of plastic toys.
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:51 PM Bruce Perens <bruce@??????.???> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:18 PM Scott McDonald via AMSAT-BB <
>> amsat-bb@?????.???> wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce-
>>> As a member I have to take exception to most of your note.
>>> 1) To oversimplify, non-standard original shapes much like the satellite
>>> model often are considered copyrightable, and the copyright vests in the
>>> creator when the work is created. Notice and registration have much to do
>>> with the right to sue and collect damages, among other things, but have
>>> nothing to do with the copyright vesting in the creator.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I would think that the shapes are more the topic of design
>> patent. The case law around this applies to 2D fonts: the font file can be
>> copyrighted, but if one renders the font and traces the outline, that is
>> _not_ protected by copyright. The law has not entirely followed this for 3D
>> shapes, but in part that is because we don't have enough good cases about
>> them yet.
>>
>> And then we have the matter of the *function* of the particular shape.
>> The overall cubesat shape is constrained by a standard and thus functional
>> rather than expressive and not copyright protectible. Something like a
>> parabolic antenna would be constrained by phyiscal law and thus again
>> functional rather than expressive and not copyright protectible.
>>
>> Of course I'd love to write an expert report on this topic or help an
>> attorney argue all of this in court.
>>
>>
>>> 2) In my experience, it is a rare organization that would be happy with
>>> a director having an informal discussion with "enough" other directors and
>>> then releasing its intellectual property.
>>
>>
>> Is this about Michelle and the model? I am not going to argue that she
>> isn't headstrong, etc. It may be the kind of headstrong we need. There is
>> about 50 years of inertia to overcome.
>>
>>
>>> 3) Your opinion that AMSAT shouldn't pursue patents dumbfounds me.
>>
>>
>> Wow! No, I am going to stand by that one. First, AMSAT as a public
>> benefit non-profit should not be standing in the way of other people's
>> research and work. Second, if it does so, it will be subject to companies
>> bringing their patent portfolios to bear against AMSAT, which would
>> entirely hobble AMSAT's ability to build and launch satellites. Every
>> software program and I am sure everything as complex as a cubesat practices
>> a patent claim that is currently in force if never litigated. What we have
>> right now is a sort of tacit detante, which is the best we can do within
>> current law. This is a topic I have explored thoroughly for Open Source
>> projects. Start to issue patents to AMSAT, and we will be on the radar of
>> very many companies with larger portfolios than ours.
>>
>> The only workable strategy would be a purely defensive portfolio, and I
>> can't see that it's worth the cost.
>>
>> If AMSAT creates something that is commercially significant in the
>>> satellite field, protectable by any form of IP, that invention should not
>>> be disclosed to others until an informed decision is made as to its
>>> potential value. If there is a good business case for protecting the
>>> asset, that should be done. I expect there are enough members that could
>>> do this work pro bono, if the work could actually provide AMSAT with
>>> licensing income or leverage for collaboration opportunities.
>>>
>>
>> The problem with all of this is that AMSAT has to bring lawsuits to
>> enforce its patents, and threaten to do so before anyone else would even
>> consider paying for a patent. A patent is simply a license to sue.
>> Meanwhile, we have to be 1000 times more careful to search patents about
>> everything in our satellites. No thank you.
>>
>> I expect many AMSAT volunteers already know this from their work
>>> elsewhere, but figured it was worth mentioning, as its seems some folks
may
>>> not.
>>
>>
>> I am sure that many people know something of the patent policy of their
>> companies. Most probably don't understand it fully. But that doesn't apply
>> to a public benefit non-profit, for sensible strategic reasons. This is one
>> of those areas where a corporate attorney could give us the entirely wrong
>> advice.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@?????.???.
AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide
without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 15, Issue 257
*****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
