Open Source Paintball Gun

[rabidchihauhau]

I brought this subject up in another thread :

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219153&page=4&pp=30&highlight=open+source

and wanted to throw it out there for discussion.

Suppose that it were possible for someone so-inclined to obtain licensing rights to a design and had the manufacturing capability to provide some of the base components at a "decent" price.

Suppose that instead of simply marketing the product, said individual/company figured out a way to include a "limited license" for others who purchased said hardware, allowing them to build a marker for themselves that was legal and covered by patents.

Questions:

Do you think players would be willing to pay a few extra dollars for tech to receive the license?

Would others be willing to purchase just a license so that they could make whatever they wanted (that was covered)? (Presuming a reasonable one-time "lifetime" fee)

Would others be willing to throw their designs into the mix? Would such others be interested in obtaining IP protection (where appropriate) for their contributions and then be willing to sell such under the same kind of terms (limited license folded into the purchase price?)

Do others have other "open source" models they would suggest: a key component of such would necessarily be some dollars being set aside to obtain additional IP and/or to protect the existing IP so that it could remain "open source".

Such a thing would have to also recognize and accomodate the fact that there are at least two different kinds of "designers" out there (and here I'm talking about good, desireable tech, not just anything. Workable, economical, usable stuff.). There are those who will be designing things for which they have a desire and a need to receive some level of compensation, and there will be others who just want to do and be recognized.

This is a hypothetical suggestion for finding/developing a middle ground between IP protection (and its benefits as well as destriments) and the advantages of a completely open market (that eventually stagnates because no one has made enough profit for investment into the next generation).

Those who designed/manufactured would find a ready market; others could take advantage of suggestions/designs that were thrown out there; the IP would remain in a protected state and there would be a reinvestment mechanism in place.

Perhaps another method might be a "club" where membership includes the rights...?

[y0da900]

Like I said in the other thread, I would love to see something like this happen. If it were done, I have a number of concepts that I would gladly toss into the pool just because I would like to see them worked with.

In addition to just designs and concepts, the group could also function as a standards organization. Lots of markers are "cocker threaded" for barrels, but since WGP has no published spec for the barrels, there is enough variation between them that some are incompatible. Things like that could be alleviated by creating a fixed standard that could be adhered to by others.

A suggestion in the other discussion I've seen on the topic was to model it after the GPL that is often used for open source software, and has apparently been successfully used to defend hardware in the past.

http://tinkersguild.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=609

I don't think that limiting it off the bat to good desirable tech is the best option, there are a lot of half baked ideas out there that are terrible ideas in and of themselves, but if their main issues are overcome, have the potential to be fantastic. There may even be a separate protection put in place for designs that are purely jumping points with no marketable aspects as is.

As you mentioned, a membership system could be put in place, which could open up a lot of other possibilities. You could open up anywhere from no included licensing to all included licensing with cost of membership (and everywhere in between), a quid-pro-quo basis where membership and rights are given based on the number of designs you have contributed, some combination thereof, spec adherence rights without licensing of designs membership options....

And one of the things that a lot of people seem to not get entirely, and this goes for both patents (sometimes) and open source licenses. The idea behind it is not always to prevent others from making millions with the idea, but to make it so that they can't prevent you from doing it by taking your idea.

[Anjin3515]

sounds like a reasonable idea. It grants protection but allows users to "tinker"....of course it would all depend on how much that license would cost...too much and people wont bite.

So would the original designer get a "cut" of every license fee? You would have to work out the whole payment thing....but all in all I like the idea.

[rabidchihauhau]

Thanks for participating so far.

I'll look at the GPL stuff later today and comment on it later.

As for "how" it will work - that's obviously far from being decided, but one place I'd look to get a start would be the various patent consortiums that already exist. Licensing of your design to members of the group offsets the fees that you are charged by others. I don't know exactly how one design would be valued against another - categories perhaps - and the consortium concept would probably require a dedicated person to manage, so it might end up being something simpler, like a minimal threshold of contribution to obtain/retain the licenses at no additional charge (or contiual payment of your dues - except what happens to lapsed individual members?)

This whole concept was highly speculative to begin with, so it doesn't surprise me that lots and lots of bumps are showing up even on the third post.

And Yoda - thanks for pointing out that IP protection would be the thing that would continue to allow such a thing to exist. It is an important point missed all too often by others.

[FinchMan]

you might be able to sell a frame that is ready-milled for pneumag components, and add a small license fee on top. Though I doubt anybody would buy a license if they are starting from scratch.

If you want to make a open source idea discussion board with special rules, that would be cool.

[Lohman446]

risk to reward.

Most AOers (and others) feel there is very minimal risk to themselves for building a marker in defiance of intellectual property rights. To a large degree they are right, especially those built for personal use. What effective recourse do you actually have against them?

[robnix]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like what you're talking is selling a kit with specific parts to build a specific type of marker, or a license to go out and build one with whatever parts the builder desires for whatever purpose. It's still not really any different than what you have now. Rights holders that keep a license for a product who's manufacture is openly described in patent applications or can be easily reverse engineered.

The IP is already 'open source'. You can take any marker apart in a few minutes, and with the right technical knowledge understand enough about how it works to reproduce it.

[y0da900]

The IP is already 'open source'. You can take any marker apart in a few minutes, and with the right technical knowledge understand enough about how it works to reproduce it.

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit. What it prevents is a Smart Parts move of people doing things openly and freely (electros), then having someone go back retroactively and claiming something as their own IP tacked onto something existing or creating anew, and charging you to use it.

Rabid is not talking exclusively about pneu-frames. What this is, is the potential to gather a large amount of intellectual property (ideas, designs, concepts, specifications), control who can use it (potentially freely), and to prevent someone from having their own ideas used against them. Lots of us have designs we would willingly part with just so we can finally see them built, and to get other peoples spins on them. There are tons of designs that nobody gets shown on here or elsewhere because we are paranoid about having our designs ripped off, and prevented from using them ourselves.

[robnix]

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit. What it prevents is a Smart Parts move of people doing things openly and freely (electros), then having someone go back retroactively and claiming something as their own IP tacked onto something existing or creating anew, and charging you to use it.

So everyone will be happy with a definition for OSS, here's how the OSI defines Open Source Software:

1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition (Fair use allowed)

Rabid is not talking exclusively about pneu-frames. What this is, is the potential to gather a large amount of intellectual property (ideas, designs, concepts, specifications), control who can use it (potentially freely), and to prevent someone from having their own ideas used against them. Lots of us have designs we would willingly part with just so we can finally see them built, and to get other peoples spins on them. There are tons of designs that nobody gets shown on here or elsewhere because we are paranoid about having our designs ripped off, and prevented from using them ourselves.

The kind of marker is irrelevant. What he's talking about is a licensing/IP/patent consortium that would maintain control over and protect the IP for it's members. As long as there's any profit motivation with something like this, greed will eventually cause it's failure. Eventually the little guy and the political outsiders will get shut out.

[luke]

risk to reward.

Most AOers (and others) feel there is very minimal risk to themselves for building a marker in defiance of intellectual property rights. To a large degree they are right, especially those built for personal use. What effective recourse do you actually have against them?

That was my thought exactly.

[luke]

That does not give you the right to reproduce it part for part though. The idea of open source is entirely different from that. It allows people to use certain design aspects legally, and for profit.

If this would allow me to sell parts or frames on the open market I'm all for it.

[rabidchihauhau]

Software is arguably far different from a manufactured product: there have been real questions (in IP terms) about what constitutes the product, how much of a "change" renders such no longer the thing covered, how ownership is derived for applications, patches, what obviousness is and on and on.

It is also much easier to propogate software than it is a manufactured product.

I used "open source" as the phrase to describe it because the general concept would be one of joint sharing of the "designs" and joint "sharing" of the protection, not because I wanted to subscribe to one particular definition of such a thing.

The "objections" raised here are, for the most part valid ones. I have some suggested solutions to some of them, but want to hear others first.

[luke]

Please define what this would entail.

Would it only allow DIY tinkering or could someone use it for profit gain?

[rabidchihauhau]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

[robnix]

I'm not sure: I'm hoping that the folks here will make their preferences known.

I would imagine that the "best" way to go about it would be that a "member" gets to commercialize their designs through the group.

That might not mean anything initially, but if such a thing took off, the imprint of the product being from the OSPBG would hopefully provide additional marketing assistance and stand for some level of reliability and quality - not to mention a recognized standard that a whole slew of products would adhere to.

Perhaps something like:

1. you agree to pay the licensing fee to participate (whatever that is)
2. you agree to assign any IP you receive to the "group" (for some reasonable compensation)
3. you agree to assist the group in protecting all of its holdings
4. you agree to modify your product to adhere to the prevailing standards
5. you don't have to pay anyone else in the group if you utilize their IP
6. you get to participate in setting the standards
7. you get to advertise your product within the group and have it included in all group offerings
8. after proper review, the group may decide to underwrite your new IP applications
9. there may be opportunities to bundle various offerings; if your product is selected, you'd be the one asked to supply it

objections to any/all of the above would be: 1. someone will eventually dominate "the group", greed will rear its ugly head, disagreement will curtail growth and a whole host of related issues.

I would say that there are models for dealing with all of it; if "approval" requires consensus, then protection lies within numbers. Numbers can slow things down, so there would be a provision that after a particular time frame of offering something to the group, a member can go it on their own - with no consequences (in other words, if the group fails to act or says no, they can't then stifle something they said no to) and etc.

The above is just one view that will hopefully generate alternatives.

But yes, there would HAVE to be a commercial component if such a thing were to have a hope of succeeding. Otherwise, where's the money going to come from for IP protection, manufacturing a part everyone needs but that is not "economical" for any one member to make, etc., etc.

You need a Paintball Standards group that sets a solid set of standards for:

1) Markers and air systems.
2) Rules for tournament play.
3) Field standards for rec play.
4) Safety standards.

Paintball IP would be held and used the same way the FSF protects software IP. Not to benefit any one company, but to benefit everyone by defending the group against predatory companies. Members would pay dues depending on their level of retail participation. Members would be safe to use any IP in any way they wish to, as long as it conforms to the standards set by the group. Fees could be based on a members level of interest and plans for use of the IP. A ruling commitee would be elected every so often, with term limits.

It could work, but it would take:

1) Money
2) Marketing
3) Commitment
4) Balls