Still pondering how to make a possible leading thing fit. To reintroduce something mbrennwa brought up earlier, for those that are considering contributing to the design (i.e. performing some simulations, drawings, measurements,... and submitting a write up to the project repository) what are acceptable licensing conditions? From the behaviour of people like TG in switching to hiding parts of his designs I would guess he has had problems with his designs being used for commercial purposes without acknowledgement. Can anyone confirm this is the case and how much of a problem it might be for a good DIY speaker design? If it is significant how much would it bother those that are considering contributing?
A license can make it explicit what is in or out in terms of exploitation. Not sure we can do much about crossing the line apart from following TGs lead by, perhaps, only supplying CAD files on request. Are we happy for DIY suppliers to supply kits? Are we happy for companies to build the design and sell it? Thoughts?
It would of course be preferable to address this sort of thing after a design has come together and it's value known. Not sure this an option though?
PS What is the legal status of posts to this forum?
A license can make it explicit what is in or out in terms of exploitation. Not sure we can do much about crossing the line apart from following TGs lead by, perhaps, only supplying CAD files on request. Are we happy for DIY suppliers to supply kits? Are we happy for companies to build the design and sell it? Thoughts?
It would of course be preferable to address this sort of thing after a design has come together and it's value known. Not sure this an option though?
PS What is the legal status of posts to this forum?
I am not a lawyer but given the copyright remains with the contributor (unlike many publishers who want it assigned) that doesn't look likely to interfere with contributing the content elsewhere under terms we are likely to want to adopt for an open design. If we were to publish it all here and wanted to stop diyaudio selling plans perhaps though neither seems likely. Details like CAD models are unlikely to be published here and, speaking for myself, I would likely be happy with diyaudio selling the design (subject to details).
PS Perhaps we should be explicit that there is no intention for this to be a "diyaudio" design. We are just chatting about it here. I seem to recall the powers that be not liking an earlier project wishing to use diyaudio in the name or associating the site with the project in some way.
PS Perhaps we should be explicit that there is no intention for this to be a "diyaudio" design. We are just chatting about it here. I seem to recall the powers that be not liking an earlier project wishing to use diyaudio in the name or associating the site with the project in some way.
Last edited:
Thanks for the suggestion. Just had a look (don't think I have looked in the marketplace before). Might be something to bear in mind but I think we are long long way from needing to address any details about exploitation beyond settling on an agreed degree of openness.
I may be unusual, but I consider any of my work on this forum to be "in the public domain". Anyone is free to copy it and use it for any purpose, I don't expect acknowledgment and I certainly do not expect (or want) any financial compensation. My main motivation is to avoid incuring any liability, and by making my work product free for any use, my liability is diminished.
My LCCAM 10.3 project was a "complete" design, in that the final documentation enables a builder to fully replicate the speaker. I based my IP statement and License on the BSD open source license.
I will go along with whatever the group decides. However, I do not want to incur any liability.
My LCCAM 10.3 project was a "complete" design, in that the final documentation enables a builder to fully replicate the speaker. I based my IP statement and License on the BSD open source license.
I will go along with whatever the group decides. However, I do not want to incur any liability.
Here is something to initiate a discussion on the first two tasks
I tried to upload it to the google drive, but I did not see a way to do it.
j.
I tried to upload it to the google drive, but I did not see a way to do it.
j.
Good stuff. In order to post you need your google id added to the list of google ids that can work inside the directory. Click on any file in the directory and you will see a button to ask for edit access. Press it and I will get an email asking for access. I will give access to the whole directory rather than files. Or just send an email to loudspeakerengineering asking for permission along with your google id. I didn't think it wise to let everybody edit.
you never know what kind of snowflake or sociopath is going to abuse the US court system.
A guy like that shouldn't be allowed to eat with a fork - he'd be in real danger of missing the mouth and poke his eye out.
Can vituixcad (which doesn't run on my desktop) write out plot values to a file with a simple format suitable for importing into a plotting program/script? This would enable values from other programs or scripts to be on the same plot in a standard format. Not needed for a while but likely in the future.
Similarly can your word processor write out in a format understood by pandoc in order to ease the generation of content for a project website when we have something to put up?
Would that be relevant here? Why?
I believe I mentioned somewhere that you guys may want to use a license for your project. That would help making such things clear(er).
Is it not public domain here by definition ? Or at worst property of the diyaudio site editor according which country the datas are stocked ?
diyAudio runs out of Australia.
To quote part of the site rules..
* For proper context I'd advise reading the section "Website Terms of Use"
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/help/terms/
yes. Vituixcad can export traces into a text-file:
you can also import and show a trace as independent target curve (or as driver-specific response curve, of course).
not sure if it can show an independent window with several user selected curves to be overlaid.
Reading the rules I see the following (highlights by be):
All copyright, trade marks, design rights, patents and other intellectual property rights (registered and unregistered) in and on our website and all content (including any applications) located on the site shall remain the sole property of diyAudio or its licensors (which includes other users).
Further below is another paragraph that seems relevant:
By sharing any contribution (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) with diyAudio you agree to grant to diyAudio, free of charge, permission to use the material in any way we want (including modifying and adapting it for operational and editorial reasons).
In other words, the diyAudio rules seem to say that (i) the intellectual property of anything and everything on diyAudio belongs to diyAudio, and (ii) by posting information on diyAudio, this information belongs to diyAudio.
I am obviously not a lawyer, but something is very wrong here! If I post my ideas on diyAudio, these ideas should belong to me, not someone else, and surely not the diyAudio company running the website. Someone please illuminate me.
EDIT/UPDATE:
I discussed this with ChatGPT. Here's a link to this conversation.
Bottom line: if you don't want to give away your ideas and designs and allow anyone to do whatever they want:
- Use a license that sets the rules of what is allowed, and what isn't.
- Make it very clear in your posts on diyAudio that your content is covered by this license, not the diyAudio rights.
Last edited:
But first we need to know what likely contributors are happy with and what not. For example:
1. happy for commercial companies to exploit the design for free without attribution
2. happy for commercial companies to exploit the design for free but only with attribution
3. unhappy for commercial companies to exploit the design without some form of payment
4. unhappy for commercial companies to exploit the design at all
5. ???
I am assuming we can take it as read that everyone is happy for DIYers to freely build the design? But should we hold back and supply on request one or two details if we opt to limit commercial exploitation in someway?
My preference is 2. which is pretty much the BSD license used by hifijim for one of his projects. Not sure I know enough to answer the question about holding back one or two details. What are other peoples views?
you need to give the full paragraphe.
this says that DIYAudio.com have a free licence to use your published material without limitation within the website. But you stay the owner of the copyright. You just can't charge DIYAudio for using your material in any way.