Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[chudster]

This is an open project. Anyone can be involved and there are likely to be all sorts of people on these forums. Whites employees, Minelab employees, Madlab Inc employees, black, white, women, men, Jews, Arabs, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Mormons, Moslems, socialists, capitalists, (unfortunately too many ) Australians and yes people who sign or do not sign the code of conduct.

All that signing the code of conduct means is that people agree to the document. Signing it does not make you a member of any of the above groups or that you agree with their views and equally it is not there to try to stop people from collaborating.

Whether you choose to work on the open detector project is up to you. If you do, then as a further matter, whether you choose to work on a particular part of the open project with any of the above groups of people (or individuals) or not is up to you.

I have always said that this is a stepping stone. I encourage you to have a look at the post below and do some reading into the licenses that could be used as arguably that is a legal step that will have more impact than the Code of Conduct:

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?19777-Open-Metal-Detector-Project&p=159872

We are on a path to working together on free and open hardware using best practice from others like the amateur radio community. I can't tell you that it will be perfect but it will be better than the chaos that exists at present.

I understand your feeling if a Minelab employee or a fan of their detectors signs up. Their affiliation must be properly declared and I had asked Patches to do that via PM. I certainly would find it ironic if people did not become involved because this has occurred.

An open detector project allows for anyone to be involved. Microsoft employees work on the Linux Kernel! Lets keep focused on an Open Detector and move step by step.

Further, that as a sufficient number of people have signed the Code of Conduct, I have requested the Administrators to create a space in the Projects section as a next step.

Chudster

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

I think, the fact that he clearly shows his allies, speaks in his favor.

Tinkerer

How is my avatar now WM6 & Tinkerer? Is not Whites a major player? I am sure you will accept me better now, no?

And WM6, what make of coil is that in your avatar??

[Tinkerer]

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

To be a member of the CoCV3 club does not mean we can not sign up to other clubs too. I would gladly sign up the the "MadLabs Inc." club. I am definitely loco enough to do it.

Tinkerer

[Davor]

I'm not holding my breath till his first useful contribution.

[Tinkerer]

Code of conduct signed by one of the loudest Mine-lab proponent, which represent his clearly by ML trade-mark in his avatar, cannot be code of conduct of hobbyist and free thinking people. What is good for ML, cannot be good for amateur MD designer and developer, for sure. Amateurs do not need to sit under ML umbrella, even implicitly.

I think, the fact that he clearly shows his allies, speaks in his favor.

Tinkerer

[Woody.au]

Signing anything can lock you in to something you wish never happened.

Sign nothing, agree to nothing unless it will benefit yourself and not another agenda.

Bad advice can cost you dearly.

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Code of conduct signed by one of the loudest Mine-lab proponent, which represent his clearly by ML trade-mark in his avatar, cannot be code of conduct of hobbyist and free thinking people. What is good for ML, cannot be good for amateur MD designer and developer, for sure. Amateurs do not need to sit under ML umbrella, even implicitly.

Oh stop with the nonsense WM6!! I do not work for Minelab. I am a free thinking bloke not like you. So you think that anyone who supports a major detector company should be banned from this group? Does that include Carl?

[WM6]

Code of conduct signed by one of the loudest Mine-lab proponent, which represent his clearly by ML trade-mark in his avatar, cannot be code of conduct of hobbyist and free thinking people. What is good for ML, cannot be good for amateur MD designer and developer, for sure. Amateurs do not need to sit under ML umbrella, even implicitly.

[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

[chudster]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

The code of conduct is now posted on this thread.

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?19794-Open-Project-Code-of-Conduct&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

[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]

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/showthread.php?19777-Open-Metal-Detector-Project&p=159872#post159872

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]

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

[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?