Commercial BIB

[GM]

off-topic split off from here

Originally Posted by planet10

The BIB is their own work.

How so? All I see is more blatant 'bottom feeding' off the DIY community.

GM

[planet10]

Originally Posted by GM

How so?

In the sense of there own execution based on the the BIB work done here. They don't try to hide where it comes from. i don't see anything wrong with them doing it, atually a tribute.

dave

[GM]

Without my prior consent, I consider for profit ventures based on anything I have invested any of my quality time/intellectual property into as outright piracy.

GM

[planet10]

BIB is clearly in the public domain, and originally developed by Terry Cain.

What you say is akin to requiring permission from Theile & Small to do a bass reflex.

dave

[MJK]

Originally Posted by GM

How so? All I see is more blatant 'bottom feeding' off the DIY community.

Without my prior consent, I consider for profit ventures based on anything I have invested any of my quality time/intellectual property into as outright piracy.

GM

I agree GM. Another example of profit from DIYers efforts, I don't see any original work on the site. It is getting very hard to take.

Martin

[chrisb]

Originally Posted by GM

Without my prior consent, I consider for profit ventures based on anything I have invested any of my quality time/intellectual property into as outright piracy.

GM

Originally Posted by MJK

I agree GM. Another example of profit from DIYers efforts, I don't see any original work on the site. It is getting very hard to take.

Martin

Terry certainly made no effort to obscure his inspirations for the BIB as first posted on the Single Driver Website

Single Driver Website


Assuming that current firms have satisfied the licensing requirements for use of your worksheets, and clearly acknowledge / accredit prior art (which doesn't seem to be missing from Kurt's site), what addition measures would be deemed satisfactory?

Believe it or not, this is an issue that some of us in the grey area actually do fret over.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by chrisb

Assuming that current firms have satisfied the licensing requirements for use of your worksheets, and clearly acknowledge / accredit prior art (which doesn't seem to be missing from Kurt's site), what addition measures would be deemed satisfactory?

There seem to be at least two individuals building and selling designs done by Scott with my worksheets without the appropriate license. This appears to be one of the two, the other is down below in the manufacturers section.

I have stopped posting upgrades to the worksheets, essentially stopped posting advice or anwering questions on forums, and have not posted any of my new design and theory documents because of these types of problems. But to be honest, my life has become a lot more relaxing after scaling back my efforts to share so maybe it is all good.

Martin

[planet10]

Originally Posted by MJK

There seem to be at least two individuals building and selling designs done by Scott with my worksheets without the appropriate license. This appears to be one of the two, the other is down below in the manufacturers section.

Martin, AFAIK Kurt has a commercial licence from you, it was one of the conditions to licence the big Alpair 12 horn from Scott.

As such he has complied with all licencing requirements, and his work on BIBs predates GM's generous release of his simplified BIB formulas into the public domain when he published them here.

dave

[chrisb]

Originally Posted by MJK

There seem to be at least two individuals building and selling designs done by Scott with my worksheets without the appropriate license. This appears to be one of the two, the other is down below in the manufacturers section.

I have stopped posting upgrades to the worksheets, essentially stopped posting advice or answering questions on forums, and have not posted any of my new design and theory documents because of these types of problems. But to be honest, my life has become a lot more relaxing after scaling back my efforts to share so maybe it is all good.

Martin

It's certainly understandable that constant policing for such infringements is not something that anyone (other than lawyers for Bo$e or Mon$ter) would be interested in. That it has impacted on your desire to share new work is very unfortunate for all of us.

[planet10]

Originally Posted by MJK

There seem to be at least two individuals building and selling designs done by Scott with my worksheets without the appropriate license. This appears to be one of the two, the other is down below in the manufacturers section.

Martin, who is the other (send mail, and we can get onto them). Scott & i take seriously that manufactures of anything we do is properly licenced up.

dave