Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

61 - 74 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
Yes.

I had a moment now to search and find and review the Klampwave website.

It was only a matter of time until someone picked up on the GH (or other antennas) on the Forum - build a number of them - and demonstrate at an event like that. Build some for a few friends etc. Then sell a few.

There you go ...

I don't see this as a bad thing - making and selling them.

[ Wait till some of these designs hit a big established company - or start to be mass manufactured offshore somewhere, at much reduced cost ]

In fact I see it as a positive thing.

But yes ... should credit this Forum and those who collaborated to design, build and test these antennas.

i.e. it's not a "Klampwave" antenna. No no no .

It's a GH - Grey Hoverman antenna - originally designed by (who? Mr Grey Hoverman ? When? In year 19??) and then modeled and optimized and modified (many versions), built and tested in the field, collaboratively on the Forum by ... various members.

[ Someone please post ... and correct me - or give me the correct facts, wording, information and details on what I mention here above. ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Quick question per the license: are they required to display some notice somewhere about the design? They followed an OTA acct I set up on Twitter (that's how I found them) so I could always tweet them an inquiry about compliance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
Thanks Stampeder for pointing out the direction - for the origins and history of the GH.

I think that may be important information to make them/and others reading this thread aware of.

The thread you mention points you here:


The Gray-Hoverman Antenna For UHF Television Reception
March 11, 2008
Updated March 22, 2008 (corrected SBGH performance plots)


http://www.digitalhome.ca/ota/superantenna/

[ and that gives some history and credits for the GH ]


Post #1, and title of this thread, says:

New commercial GH being offered - is this allowed?

Looks like a Toronto company (Klampwave) is building Grey-Hoverman's for sale on the net. Not sure which GH they doing.
I simply express the personal opinion - I think it is O.K. for someone to build and sell to the public. I think that is a good thing.

ie. glad to see someone building it for sale to the public - but they should give the correct credits for the history and design and development of the antenna.

[ and not simply call it <My Company Name> antenna. ]

I believe this is in line with the topic of this thread - based on what the original poster has titled this thread - and what the OP has written in post #1 of this thread.

ie. The OP has asked "Is this Allowed?"

I have responded with the my personal opinion:
" I have no problem with this being allowed - so long as they properly credit the right people - and not just call it antenna name:
"<My co. name> Antenna"

Makes it sound like *they* invented, designed, developed, tested, and now produced the antenna.


Yes - certainly - try to find out more about this company, what they're doing in this regard / with this antenna.

And let them know about this forum, and invite them to join.

[ Seems to me they probably already know about this Forum. ]

We may see other designs from this Forum being built and sold.
Sure ... why not. Just credit the Forum and the right persons, and don't call it your own co. name.

Happy Vacation. Did not want to disturb your vacation.

Glad to see you back and posting .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,196 Posts
Unless there is a patent or copyright on the posted design, there is no way to stop someone from selling any antenna design from this forum. If posts (or other sites) for various antenna designs contain copyright notices that can be legally upheld, that would be a restriction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
Reading, quickly, the GH "agreement" / Open "license"

Seems the intention is to prevent anyone from imposing any sort of "restriction" of their own going forward, for any reason.

In simple words: "You're free to use and distribute and modify the design - but you can't place any restrictions on others yourself - going forward."

i.e. It's free and open, and always will be - for ever and ever amen.

But there is a clause saying something like: "Don't misrepresent it as your own design."

Fair enough. An anti-patent, patent.

[ The opposite of what we read in many other restrictive "patents" or "license restrictions" ]

Makes sense - in this case, seems like they want it to be freely built, shared, modified, even built and sold to others ... but just give proper credit .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
I am not a Lawyer, and this is not legal advice ...

But here are a few cut and pastes which may (or may not) apply to the question of this thread:

"New commercial GH being offered - Is this allowed?"


FROM: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007

GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.


Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt


some cut and pastes (bolding is mine):


4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.


...



7. Additional Terms.

...

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

...

c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
authors of the material; or



So ... 7. sounds so me like "If you modify the design, you can ask the copyright holders of the original design, for permission to be allowed to add terms on your modified design ... to Prohibit misrepresentation of the origin of the design. And (d) Limit for publicity, use of names of licensors or authors of the design.

[ I substituted the word design in italics for "material" ]

Seems to me, in 7. Additional Terms, the intention is to make sure to credit the original licensors and authors of the design (or later modifications to it).

... and to Prohibit misrepresentation of the origin [of material / design].

But in any case - makes practical / common sense to properly credit the original authors and licensors of the material / design.


I am not a Lawyer, and this is not legal advice ...

Personal opinion - yes it was a good step to put an intended "Free and Open design" under such a: GNU General Public License, a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. [ antenna designs, or mods of designs, from earlier works - like from Mr. Doyt Hoverman - or future mods / development of the GH - from the Forum ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,196 Posts
I believe the GNU General Public License allows for proprietary portions of works, provided they were developed independently. For example, the antenna's element design is covered by the GNU General Public License but the plastic molding in the center may be a proprietary design that is copyrighted. That is, of course, unless a similar design for that piece was covered by the GNU General Public License. The GH designs I've seen use a significantly different approach to supporting the elements. There are lots of examples to this approach in commercially available products. Devices that use an open source OS, such as Linux, with a proprietary, closed source application on top are common.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
GH is in the Public Domain

I was just curious if someone was actually commercially allowed to make available the GH design.
Great question dheian.

Yes of course anyone can make it. Despite what stampeder and others may think, they have garnered absolutely no "design idea protection" whatsoever with their use of GPL on their design "documentation."

Yes, if you "copy" their original design "documentation" you have to follow the GPL. If you make your very own design "documentation" of their design "idea," that documentation is yours to license, or not, as you see fit.

Why?

The actual GH designs themselves are in the public domain through the designers' failure to understand basic intellectual property laws. You cannot copyright a utility design or idea... period. That's what patents are for. No patent on design? No rights on design?

Every GH improvement ever achieved by the GH designers on their website are in the public domain and are free for anyone to make with no attribution necessary. It is still a good moral thing to attribute good works, but make no mistake the public now "owns" the GH designs.

All this said, it appears the Klampwave product is based on Doyt Hoverman's original reflectorless patented design from the early 1960s so GH isn't even a consideration unless you consider the slightly shorter horizontal elements a non-obvious improvement.


Let's take a moment and address the original subject of this thread...

"Gray Hoverman License, Copyright, and Ownership"

one more time.

"Gray Hoverman License"
Licensing requires there be something to license. The Gray Hoverman design has no utility or design patent, is thus in the public domain, thereby establishing there is NOTHING to license. Thus there is no such thing as a Gray Hoverman "design" License.

"Copyright"
As documented in my previous post, you cannot copyright designs and ideas in the US. Perhaps it is different in Canada, but the various IP treaties likely synchronize these rules very well.

Any drawings are copyrightable and the GH folks have done so for "their drawings." This only protects their "expression" of the GH design not the GH design itself. Any others who make their very own, from scratch, drawing of the GH design do NOT inherit the GPL. Thus no one can photograph the GH design drawing and avoid the GPL. However, someone can re-document the dimensions and such, thus creating their "own expression" of the public domain design and it is theirs to license as they wish. I know this sounds sad to some, but it's the way it is for technical documentation like this.

This is a akin to two photographers photographing the same nature scene at the same time with their own cameras. Each owns copyright to their images and cannot prevent the other from licensing their image to customers despite the likely similarity of the two images. Their expressions are theirs. However the scene they photographed is open for anyone to photograph. Because the GH design is in the public domain, anyone is able to capture that design anyway they wish so long as they don't "directly copy" the "artwork" rendition of the GH folks' utility design.

"Ownership"
Via their misunderstanding of IP laws, the GH folks have effectively put their designs into the wild via putting it into the public domain. They no longer own anything. The only thing they can expect is an attaboy from others kind enough to remember who "gifted" the GH design into the world. This sort of IP spillage happens quite often and there is nothing to do except enjoy watching your design help others.



The reason this is important is the folks who read these posts might succumb to the regular repetitious warnings proffered by stampeder and others fueled by their complete misunderstanding of how IP laws work. If they don't hurry up and absorb the education a simple 45 minute Google research session on Copyrights, Patents, etc. gives you, they will threaten one entity too many with their GPL mantra. At that point a lawyer will bitchslap them to the ground (serve them with a cease and desist?) for wasting everyone's time. All the rest of us can/will say is "We told you so."

Another failed goal of the GH desginers' use of GPL is the erroneous expectation that "improvements" to the design will somehow remain under GPL. Since copyrights do not apply to utility design (thus GPL isn't in the picture - AT ALL), it is completely reasonable for someone to take the GH (or original Hoverman) design, discover an improvement and patent just that improvement. The original designs are still public domain, but the improvement is protected by a patent. Nothing, I repeat, nothing about GPL can prevent this. Think this doesn't happen? Think again.

Can't you DH designers be happy that a commercial manufacturer might think of your design worthy enough to actually build and sell? Your utter mismanagement of your design IP entities you to no more. Get over it. Move on and let your obvious awesome technical abilities shine forth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Unless there is a patent or copyright on the posted design, there is no way to stop someone from selling any antenna design from this forum. If posts (or other sites) for various antenna designs contain copyright notices that can be legally upheld, that would be a restriction.
Only patents protect designs (utility designs in this case). Copyrights (and the GPL) do not protect designs.
 

·
OTA Forum Moderator
Joined
·
24,867 Posts
I'm still on vacation, but I am glad this thread and topic are being discussed. :D

Stick to the ideas rather than the people, and in my own case all I have asked from people contacting Klampwave is to be friendly, to get information, and to invite them to join here where they would be most welcome.

Just one question for 60CRC: what is your experience in these matters of product licensing, copyright, and open source philosophy so that we can try to evaluate the weight of your opinions? :)

I'll check back in some time later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I'm still on vacation, but I am glad this thread and topic are being discussed. :D

Just one question for 60CRC: what is your experience in these matters of product licensing, copyright, and open source philosophy so that we can try to evaluate the weight of your opinions? :)
As a semi-pro photographer I deal with copyright issues regularly and often so am reasonably well versed in that particular flavor of Copyrights in the US. I also use copyrighted photographs for projects and fully comply with the terms offered by the owners. Being a reasonably civilized community, the world of copyright holders is the easiest to enter, understand and enjoy.

As a programmer I enjoy contributing towards software projects where GPL is applicable for the same noble reasons you are attempting to apply to utility designs. A script kid at heart, the severity of my desire to play programmer at a Linux prompt is highlighted by the fact I am fluent in vi.

I never quit my day job so, by day, I am an electrical engineer specializing in antenna design - 27 years and counting. Recently I have some patents in the works and have been introduced into the realm of the whole IP thing where licensing, etc. regularly occur. The patent world is particularly brutal with tricksters out-patenting each other at every turn. This is not as civilized as it should be and a lot more expensive to play in.

Short of being an IP lawyer, I am a participant in nearly every aspect of the IP processes with the notable exception of my obtaining a license from a patent holder. In short, I've lived long enough to not see it all, but enough to backup the points I've been making.

Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Prior Art Publication has more power than GPL concerning designs.

Is it correct though, that GPL also protects the nec files published under it.
So that modifications to those nec files should also be covered by GPL if published
In so much as NEC files are the equivalent to source code, sure they retain the copyright of the author upon creation and can have the GPL applied to govern republishing and such - if properly marked. The GH folks did this with their color assembly diagram of their result here...

http://www.digitalhome.ca/ota/superantenna/design.htm

...and, I assume, the NEC files. However, I didn't notice a link to download the NEC files, but assuming they exist somewhere and have the GPL header somehow in the comments of the NEC text file, it benefits from GPL. Even without GPL, source code still has a copyright owned by someone for a very very long time.

or used to build and distribute antennas.
Here's the catch. While source code and design documentation can create an executable or instruct someone how to build something, it doesn't suggest the actual design itself inherits the GPL since designs (and ideas) cannot have a copyright.

This is not too different from plain old software. It may be that a software algorithm has a "method" patent protecting it and any number of people or organizations, without knowledge of the patent, might independently instantiate this method in their own software development. Indeed, the source code for each development effort quickly and automatically attains a copyright. Some might distribute the code as GPL with the noble goal of giving it and its derivatives away to the public with the usual GPL mechanism. The original algorithm, aka the design, still has a patent so no one may implement (or build) anything without negotiating with the patent holder for the term of the patent.

In the Hoverman development example we have, somewhere, NEC files for the GH presumably with the GPL and at least another development effort here...

http://www.jedsoft.org/fun/antennas/dtv/gh.html

...with downloadable NEC files. Both document Hoverman designs and have done so long enough to put these designs into the public domain thereby preventing the patenting of the design by someone else. This is often called defensive publication of prior-art and is a damn good and cheap method of ensuring a particular method or design gets to the public domain quickly and stays there.

In the Gray-Hoverman case, the "design" is in the public domain via prior-art publication and is absolutely free for anyone to build, market and sell despite what any source code (the NEC files) GPL status may be.

The noble cause of gifting the GH design to the world has been achieved via the defensive prior-art publication of the design in 2008 despite the copyright status of NEC files, build drawings, etc. The apparent unintended consequence of this gift is the complete and total loss of control over the future use of the GH design and independently created documentation. Trying to use the GPL as a control over GH use and commercialization has no muscle.

The other thing to watch for is anyone who patents a legitimate improvement to the design. The GPL's protections about publishing improvements to NEC files unfortunately cannot preclude someone from patenting those improvements. However, timing in everything. If the NEC files do, in fact, document and publish the improvement before the patent applicant submits an application for patent, it can effectively block the issue of a patent as prior art. That's real power and that's what I suggest everyone who wants to gift their designs to the public domain do. Publish, publish, publish.
 
61 - 74 of 74 Posts
Top