[aprssig] APRS Open Spec

[Patrick]

Any thoughts about evolving Scott's OpenTrac spec?  It is open so you 
could base off that...

p

Ron McCoy wrote:
> <sigh>
>
> As I said, in part of my post that you elided, "I have no interest in 
> stealing anyone's IP."
>
> What is it about hams that makes it so hard to form cooperative groups? 
> I don't think anything about my post was provocative. I went out of my 
> way to praise the work that Bob and others have done here. Far more than 
> I ever have. If my tone came across as something else, sorry to everyone 
> who took it that way.
>
> I guess I'll just retire to lurking again. <I just deleted some snarky 
> comments I was writing about happiness with the state of APRS. It's 
> exactly the type of comment that antagonizes people without moving the 
> group forward>
>
> I've been having a great time working on Arduino projects with a local 
> group of people who love to invent, repurpose and extend technology.  My 
> own perception--not trying to project it on anyone else or claim it is 
> true for all--is that that time is past for ham radio.
>
>
> Steve Dimse wrote:
>   
>> On Sep 28, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Ron McCoy wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Thanks, Steve.
>>>
>>> Can you tell me how this would be construed as commercial copying?
>>>     
>>>       
>> It isn't and I didn't say it was. Editing and publishing a changed  
>> document is what is not "non-commercial copying". Copy means copy, not  
>> edit and disseminate.
>>   
>>     
>>> As far as I've seen, there is no longer an  APRS Working Group.
>>>     
>>>       
>> The fact that a group is not active does not make the group's  
>> intellectual property public domain. I resigned from the group prior  
>> to it becoming inactive, so I make no claim to the spec. Bob has a  
>> very definite stake in it though. If he gave permission for you to do  
>> this, and no members of the APRS WG objected after being notified,  
>> then I'd feel comfortable if I were the one publishing. Without Bob's  
>> blessing, and the chance for any other members of the copyright  
>> holding organization to object, I would never allow something like  
>> this on a web site I was legally responsible for.
>>   
>>     
>>> Last, if, in fact, the spec is encumbered in a way that prevents open
>>> comment and the ability for the community to work together to make  
>>> it a
>>> living, evolving spec, isn't that an outstanding reason to write an  
>>> open
>>> spec?
>>>     
>>>       
>> No one said you cannot write your own spec. I simply said that the  
>> current APRS Spec cannot be edited on a wiki without the copyright  
>> holder's permission. If you don't like the way the latest Tom Clancy  
>> novel ends, are you allowed to copy it, change the ending, and publish  
>> it? Even if you just correct a misspelling, are you allowed to  
>> republish it? Even for free? Of course not.
>>   
>>     
>>> A copyright applies to a specific work. An open spec could be written
>>> from scratch that could be in the Creative Commons.
>>>     
>>>       
>> That is NOT what was being proposed. The proposal was posting the  
>> copyrighted spec on a wiki and editing it. That is a VERY different  
>> thing from writing an open spec from scratch!
>>
>> I never said anything about writing your own spec. Personally, I'd  
>> consider it a waste of time, because without Kenwood (controlled  
>> through Bob) and other APRS software authors agreeing to accept and  
>> implement any changes you make, it would not amount to much more than  
>> mental masturbation, but have fun!
>>
>> Steve K4HG
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
>> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>
>