Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[Davor]

Yes, that is nicely describing the absurdity of NDA-s. You are obliged not to disclose any information within the loop, but you are never given the whole information and you are either going to dunk your head in sand and play genuinely ignorant, or you will continue doing your regular thing and unknowingly disclose some information - you were not aware of.

Guess most people play the genuinely ignorant role most of the time, hence NDAs are just a tool to encourage people to continue doing so for a cause

[chudster]

This whole idea sucks in my opinion. It won't work.

Please be clear about why it won't work. What problems do you foresee? I want to know so that we can mitigate them.

Chudster do you expect, that everyone who is willing to contribute to the project has to sign your document?

No. It will be up to people to decide who they work with as they see fit. However those people may take into consideration whether they want to work with folks who won't "sign" the document. I am not the tzar and look forward to getting this to a point where it is organised and pursued by a solid teams. No great thing in technology is done by one person. It is the team that matters. BTW the plan is you can keep your anonymity in that signing and simply post that you accept it. This is a social agreement and your social forum name is good enough at that level.

(Why are you blatantly lying? At least, I don't believe in you or your intention.)

I respect your right to have beliefs; but beliefs are not based on facts.

Specifically what do you believe I am lying about?

Who is your orderer/client?

My wife does boss me around quite a lot (she would say a bit) otherwise I am in the happy position of taking orders from no one. My wife doesn't work for Minelab and my children are also far too young to be involved in international commerce.

Unhappily there is no paying client. This work is pro-bono because of my interest in the problem and because there is a workable solution and I want to go camping with my family and hopefully see my son and daughters eyes go wide if they find heir first nugget. That will be a great payment for this effort. I suppose you could say that my children are the clients that I ultimately have to satisfy.

What is really your agenda?

Aziz

Now you are shooting the messenger. It seems you assume everyone that doesn't conform to your world view has some hidden agenda and is someone's stooge.

Its not about me. Its about the document and that came from the posts on this thread and further discussions.

If you can't understand why things are in the document then ask constructive questions. Find out the facts for yourself. Make positive suggestions to change the words. That is why it was posted for forum comment.

If that is not possible then take the information to someone who understands technology strategy and IP law and get a second written opinion for the group. There should be someone suitably qualified at that place you work or within a couple of social hops.

I would value that as constructive and so would everyone else. I would value discussion about this problem with independent peers.

I do understand and respect that you have some technical expertise. It is your choice whether you sign it as is. Its also your choice whether you keep an open mind and ask questions and suggest positive changes.

The present situation is one of little coordination. Folks are repeating work and engineering that could be in common. If someone gets close to a functioning detector they can get sued. That is not fun.

In the end though I hope enough folks climb on board because this train will leave the station. I have encountered lots of people who say it can't be done, it won't work, the sky is falling and all I can see is the track ahead with lots of great discovery, fun and innovation. To do that we need to organise enough without taking the fun out of it. I believe we are getting the balance of that right.

Chudster

[chudster]

I guess that's reasonable but it would still be an unfortunate situation to be in, and one I would strive to avoid in the first place. To be perfectly honest, I really don't want to know anyone's secrets. If I ever did agree to give someone confidentiality I would want to know about the idea first in its broadest possible terms. Then I would only grant it if it was definitely not an area I was messing around in or they could in some way show me without being too revealing, that the idea was nothing like one of mine.

Midas

I think that is where the common sense sense comes in and you will handle that scenario when it arises.

Unless there are dissenting views, I will make the change and repost the document.

Chudster

[Aziz]

Hi all,

in my opinion, open projects should be taken as truly open. No agreements required. No NDA's. No contracts. No patents. No limitations. And so on.

If you don't want to share your ideas, don't publish them. Don't contribute to projects. Don't talk about it. Don't tell it to your dog and cat. And don't tell it to your wife (you never know *LOL*). That's easy.

And you shouldn't complain, when someone is using your idea as well and making profits of it. Hey, anyone in the f. universe can make or should be able to make use of public domain idea. IP can't be owned and IP shouldn't be owned too. At least, the Chinese are understanding this issue.
And if someone is going to lock the natural laws by patents, be prepared to the real "end game"(tm).

I would like to see everybody exploiting open projects/ideas to make competition possible. To make useful things cheaper and affordable. Sharing will save the world. Not greed!!!

Aziz

[ODM]

I guess everyone who participates on this forum already owns a sincere interest in MD technology, geophysics and electronics. It's also at times anarchist enough to escape all kinds of methods to define it, but when people contribute it gives back to them in turn. It provides a medium for exchanging thoughts and butting heads together when something is difficult to tackle by oneself alone, and provides truckloads of second opinions. When someone posts a personal project, there are usually those who will also build it if they find it interesting, and then report back with test results and improvements, even if it's to tell it works/doesn't work, or to ask if you can replace an opamp with another. Sometimes it won't and sometimes you can't, and it's still a learning experience. There's a prevailing good will toward fellow bottlecap sweepers and soldersmiths, at least this is the impression I've had, which keeps me coming back even if I'm not too active in this hobby at times. Of course there are arguments, but those are usually solved with some external perspective, or a bit of time out! The sorts who keep harassing other people or rip off with frauds get kicked out for good, but few people need to be even reminded of the rules as the community regulates itself, for the most part.

And those who don't follow the unwritten code of decent human behavior wouldn't probably mend their manners by signing a paper, instead maybe hiding behind it and saying they're good guys since the paper says so. If they don't worry about international copyright law, they probably aren't afraid of karmic cosmic voodoo balance getting back at them?

Long story short, it's good to think about and discuss what is good conduct on a forum or in a community - then again, if it's not a legally binding contract and if there is no need for a PR stunt or something, why sign one? Save paper for more late hour pencil schematics

[WM6]

Hi chudster,

how do you imagine signing of this CoC?

Sign and stay anonymous?

[Aziz]

Hey guys,

do you regularly save interesting MD related forum posts and ideas, (scientific) publications and papers, patents, ... ???

I have collected >55 GB (Giga byte) data on my hard disk (backupped on several hard disks).

Once a good idea is posted, I will be prepared to catch it.


You should do the same to save the public domain knowledge.
Aziz

[chudster]

WM6,

Thanks for asking.

I sensed that people want to stay publicly anonymous in the forum but still work together but also share real names privately inside a project if they wish- just as many do. This is a social contract and so the social name you use is good enough to sign it.

I plan, next week, to post the code of conduct on a new thread with explanation on how to sign. People will be able to simply sign by posting to that thread. That thread will remain the public record of who has signed and anybody will be able to check to see if that person agrees to the code of conduct principles and behaviours. If they change their mind we may have to prevail on the administrators to remove them.

The next task is to drive the discussion (see my thread) on what the open detector will look like. The idea is to make this detector as modular and hence flexible as possible and then break down the modules into subcomponents. An architect needs to be nominated to decide the overall architecture and key specifications. Each modular part will derive its own specification and interconnects that fit that standard. The important thing and cleverness needs to be the modular architecture of both hardware and software. It needs to fit into a box of defined size and be field deployable as our principle is that for R&D, the bench in not good enough.

This allows groups to form together to design their own module for testing (for example a new front end) within the constraints of the front end module while leveraging the rest of the open design. Folks can keep their module work private until they are ready to do something with it.

Think like an IBM PC from its early days. There are lots of different modules (like PC cards) that can be plugged in and out and different 'drivers' for those modules. Modules could be clean or unclean. Unclean modules contain patented or copyrighted code. The unclean versions can be plugged in for experimentation only in those jurisdictions that have patents covering them and used freely in those jurisdictions that don't. Clean versions would have only contributed and published ideas in them known to be clear of patents.

In this way everyone can stay within the law, respect industry IP and still have the latest detector that is patent free in their jurisdiction. We can all work on a common base with interchangeable modules and people can focus on improving the bit or aspect that suits or interests them.

So it would be possible for people now to just produce their own modules and sell them the way that it all happens now or just circuit boards or just publish their modular designs as- say Eagle CAD files for others to make.

Of course this is unlikely to be a rugged consumer detector given its modular construction as true field reliability would be a challenge. Nonetheless it would be the ultimate testbed that achieves the aim to produce excellent designs and test them in the field. Great for the majority of us who want to tinker with new modules and ideas. We would n't need to build a new detector design from scratch every time a new idea comes up.

The trick of this is in getting the architecture right. I see lots of people with the right experience in making all the types of detectors and sub parts that simply need to talk to get it right.

The focus, in my view should be then to get a core, patent and copyright free design that can be used in any jurisdiction and we can go from there. It is important therefore that everyone takes a serious view of respecting IP so that design begins its life totally free of IP.

I hope that explains the process a bit better.

Chudster

[ODM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible in the jungle of legal nitpicking, that you build modules that are quite legal by themselves - but once you put them together in a certain order you can have a design which falls under a patent?

And to protect a combination of modules (like any components), the combination must be shown and documented in a legally acceptable form of prior art. All individual configurations must be individually described, then?

[chudster]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible in the jungle of legal nitpicking, that you build modules that are quite legal by themselves - but once you put them together in a certain order you can have a design which falls under a patent?

It depends where you live.

In Finland only Finnish patents would apply- presumably few. Your detector could be configured with modules that have patents in force in other countries- say Australia. If you then came to Australia on holiday and brought your detector to go prospecting then the patents in force in Australia would apply- presumably lots. Assuming it had infringing IP then, technically nitpicking it depends whether you are using it here for research purposes or using it to find gold/treasure or whether you might try to sell it. Technically customs at the airport could confiscate it if they knew it contained patents and it was not going to be used for research purposes or that you were to sell it. In practice, although I do not condone you breaking our laws, they would be unlikely to act- especially if you were just a tourist with one detector coming here on holiday and taking it out again.

And to protect a combination of modules (like any components), the combination must be shown and documented in a legally acceptable form of prior art. All individual configurations must be individually described, then?

Patents work on a claim by claim basis. Break a valid claim and you likely infringe that patent. It is possible that a claim requires elements present in multiple modules so that the omission of a module would make it not infringed. From what I have seen in patents in this field that is unlikely to be the case. Claims usually apply to one module (say the front end). It could be possible that a hardware module requires software to infringe a claim and that an alternate software 'module' is used making the hardware non-infringing. Most controllers use flash memory so if that was the case, you could program out the infringement before you got on the plane and put back the algorithms that infringe in Australia when you get back to Finland. If hardware modules needed to be changed, although more difficult, you could swap them in a like fashion.

So such an arrangement allows us hobbyists to continue to develop excellent designs and take them for field testing rapidly. Industry won't sue us because we do not infringe their patents.

Chudster

[chudster]

I guess everyone who participates on this forum already owns a sincere interest in MD technology, geophysics and electronics. It's also at times anarchist enough to escape all kinds of methods to define it, but when people contribute it gives back to them in turn. It provides a medium for exchanging thoughts and butting heads together when something is difficult to tackle by oneself alone, and provides truckloads of second opinions. When someone posts a personal project, there are usually those who will also build it if they find it interesting, and then report back with test results and improvements, even if it's to tell it works/doesn't work, or to ask if you can replace an opamp with another. Sometimes it won't and sometimes you can't, and it's still a learning experience. There's a prevailing good will toward fellow bottlecap sweepers and soldersmiths, at least this is the impression I've had, which keeps me coming back even if I'm not too active in this hobby at times. Of course there are arguments, but those are usually solved with some external perspective, or a bit of time out! The sorts who keep harassing other people or rip off with frauds get kicked out for good, but few people need to be even reminded of the rules as the community regulates itself, for the most part.

And those who don't follow the unwritten code of decent human behavior wouldn't probably mend their manners by signing a paper, instead maybe hiding behind it and saying they're good guys since the paper says so. If they don't worry about international copyright law, they probably aren't afraid of karmic cosmic voodoo balance getting back at them?

Long story short, it's good to think about and discuss what is good conduct on a forum or in a community - then again, if it's not a legally binding contract and if there is no need for a PR stunt or something, why sign one? Save paper for more late hour pencil schematics

There have been a couple of posts suggesting that as it is not a legally binding contract why bother. There is no PR stunt in this.


Addressing this. The answer is some organisation and progress against doing nothing and a believing in a utopian ideal of sharing everything. Unfortunately the world is neither fair nor ideal and that will not be changed in a hurry- if ever.

Doing something about this is better than doing nothing and hoping the situation changes. It is unworkable to sign a legally binding contract between people who want to be anonymous and unlikely unless there is strong trust between everyone. Its clear from the posts that this is not going to happen in the short term but it is a stepping stone perhaps to that in the future. So the idea is to be as inclusive of everybody as possible and then take further steps.

Very good reasons for going forward.

Chudster

[chudster]

WM6,

.....
The next task is to drive the discussion (see my thread) on what the open detector will look like. The idea is to make this detector as modular and hence flexible as possible and then break down the modules into subcomponents. An architect needs to be nominated to decide the overall architecture and key specifications. Each modular part will derive its own specification and interconnects that fit that standard. The important thing and cleverness needs to be the modular architecture of both hardware and software. It needs to fit into a box of defined size and be field deployable as our principle is that for R&D, the bench in not good enough.
.....

Please see this important post about open hardware licenses and the need to discuss what an open detector looks like.

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...872#post159872

Chudster

[chudster]

Modified code of conduct due to constructive feedback from Midas.

Made the following changes:

Changed respect of confidentiality paragraph more general to read:
· I will respect confidentiality of the ideas of others. Where someone has requested that their information or ideas are to be kept confidential, I will discuss any use of those ideas with them.

Grammar corrected in legal notice paragraph 4.

Changes are marked.

Pending any other last minute suggestions I plan to post for signing on the weekend.

Chudster

[chudster]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

The code of conduct is now posted on this thread.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...nduct&p=160149

When a sufficient number of people have signed up it will be moved (with permission of the Administrator) to the Open Project section which is to be established in the projects section when sufficient parties have signed up.

Please only post to that thread if you are signing up. If you wish to discuss the wording of the code of conduct further then this is the appropriate thread for those discussions including any political statements about how you believe it or the world should be.

Thanks for all the time and input on this thread and for the work that people have put the code of conduct together.

Please consider signing up to help organize our design and common engineering efforts together so that we may minimise re-inventing the wheel and focus on excellent detector designs that can be rapidly tested in the field.

Chudster

[Aziz]

Hi all,

I'm not going to sign the new CoC V3. I'm already a participant of "MadLabs Inc."(c)(r)(tm), a non-profit, anti-greed and free organisation. *LOL*

Cheers,
Aziz