Community letter to Burt

[Chairboy]

Hi guys!

 

I had an idea on how to firm up the status of this project. One continuing barb has been the question of 'What does Burt think?' and there have been suggestions to ask him to bless the project as well as consider releasing the LongEZ under some license that protects him legally and allows anyone to build one.

 

My idea: Let's write a letter together using a Wiki. I put a couple of bullet points to cover up in a first revision, if there are any more that should be touched on, please add them. If anyone here wants to start at taking a stab at the letter itself there, go for it. Doing it this way, we can make sure all of the relevant points are covered and send it off when we come to consensus on its form.

 

Here's a link:

 

http://canardaviationwiki.dmt.net/wiki/index.php/LongEZ_licensing_request_letter

 

No login required. We can chat about any things here and implement them in the letter too, if that's easier.

 

Thoughts?

[Jon Matcho]

Ben, while I do appreciate your support and interest, I feel that this is very premature. There is great risk here with Burt saying "no", and why great care has been taken to separate the Open-EZ from the Long-EZ. With this letter you are mixing the two. If you ask Burt whether he has anything to say about the Long-EZ, you'll definitely get an answer, and most likely a "no".

 

The Open-EZ approach is to create a cousin, much like the Velocity, Berkut, or E-Racer, where, while it would be nice to have Burt's thoughts, his approval (or lack of) would have no effect. In fact, in these cases, Burt is free to discuss these models since they are not his children.

 

I'd rather not see a letter over there on the CAI-related forum as that group, in general, appears rather unsupportive of the idea for one reason or another. Regardless, the Internet will do what it does.

[Chairboy]

Hi Jon,

 

The reason I suggest this is that the continuing issue in any discussion here about the OpenEZ project seems to be the legal and moral aspects of it. There have been a few posts where people talked about trying to ask Burt at various airshows where they just haven't quite made contact, how do those differ from this effort?

 

If it's worded right (which is possible with community involvement), then we can fix not only the issues above, but it will also ease the tensions the "CAI folks" have about it too. Seems like the more of the Canardian community that's involved, the better.

 

The CAI wiki is hosted on the same server as the CAI forums, but the two _are_ seperate entities. I know there's some feud between the two forums, but I also know that there's a lot of crossover by members who think the planes are more important than the personalities. IMHO.

[HatSwitch]

Place a call to TERF.
Put your mind at ease.

[Chairboy]

Oh, I'm not building an OpenEZ myself, I'm building a Cozy and considering purchasing a Long.

 

I just think the OpenEZ is a laudable idea, and I'm trying to help solve some of the problems that the project has encountered. If we can resolve the "shady looking operation" perception that many folks have, it should dramatically increase the amount of useful brainpower that can be applied towards making it work. The best way to do that, it seems, is to go straight to the big guy himself. Since the 'missed connections' method of getting his blessing has been firing blanks, this seems like a smart way to leverage the smarts in this community towards getting it done.

[cdavis]

I'd think any letter would be a total legal disclaimer to Burt that the Open EZ had any connection with him at all.

 

Make it clear that he has no involvement, or legal liability. This is for all intents and purposes a new design.

 

I think that's what he'd want to hear. Of course he knows he's had a huge influence on aircraft design, helping popularize the Canard configuration.

 

But these are all new templates, designed by a diverse team of people. There is nothing copied verbatim from the EZ design.

 

Burt knows where his legacy credit is due. I'd expect what he wants now would be total and complete release from liability for what us knuckleheads who follow do.

[Jon Matcho]

The reason I suggest this is that the continuing issue in any discussion here about the OpenEZ project seems to be the legal and moral aspects of it.

Burt has acknowledged the existence of "xerox EZs" for years. His position is that they are NOT Long-EZs (etc.) and that he is in now way responsible for the results. The Open-EZ is evolving beyond just a simple copy of the original Long-EZ, incorporating changes to justify its unique name (as was done with the E-Racer). An interesting note is that ALL the wing drawings for the Long-EZ, E-Racer, Cosy Classic, Cozy III, and Cozy Mark IV are identical -- possibly the Berkut as well.

 

I never flew a Cozy' date=' E-Racer, or a Velocity -- and there are probably a couple others -- and the reason I never flew [them'] is [that] it isn't always just a polite request when someone wants you at their trial. Sometimes it's a subpoena, and I never wanted to be in a position to be subpoenaed... and by the fact that I never flew those airplanes, I was always able to say, "you cannot define me as an expert witness on a Cozy because I have never sat in one and I have never flown one."

The people that have the issues you mention are creating their own drama. My opinion is that Burt wants nothing to do with such discussions, yet would root for anyone building a Chairboy-EZ, or some such creation.

 

There have been a few posts where people talked about trying to ask Burt at various airshows where they just haven't quite made contact, how do those differ from this effort?

The Open-EZ project isn't dependent on contacting Burt, and has actually been setup to avoid such contact for everyone's benefit, especially including Burt's. Burt HAS been asked about his designs built from copied plans and has been clear about it -- "not my problem." You want to ask the same question, but better? You risk being annoying and worse yet, being told "no" by a lawyer.

 

...but it will also ease the tensions the "CAI folks" have about it too.

Maybe some people are more inclined to be tense than others?

 

Seems like the more of the Canardian community that's involved, the better.

I agree with that, but I don't have time to make 2-3 disagreeing people happy at the CAI forum. I have no problem with their disagreement -- disagree -- but don't drag the efforts of those behind the Open-EZ project along.

 

I'd think any letter would be a total legal disclaimer to Burt that the Open EZ had any connection with him at all.

That and the rest of your post are spot-on.

 

The CAI wiki is hosted on the same server as the CAI forums, but the two _are_ seperate entities.

<sigh>

 

I know there's some feud between the two forums...

I have no quarrel with ANY members of the CAI forum. The results are fine: we have two very different types of discussions happening. Then again, I wonder if maintaining the appearance of a feud would make for a more interesting "community".

 

...but I also know that there's a lot of crossover by members who think the planes are more important than the personalities. IMHO.

As there should be! I get information from a bundle of different sources, that forum included. What is that forum's official name anyway?

 

If we can resolve the "shady looking operation" perception that many folks have...

I'm not counting "many". Relative to supporters, there are barely enough to warrant time to discuss. Counting the critics at the Canard Community Forum (CCF -- is that what it's called?), I count about 3. Regardless, when the new drawings come out, it's not going to matter -- the drawings will be redone while maintaining the original design 100%.

 

Ben, you can do whatever you like. I am only saying that the position of the Open-EZ committee, at this time, is not to be part of the letter you are proposing and that I kindly request you not to include the Open-EZ canard in the discussion. Petition for the Long-EZ, the Xerox-EX, or the Chairboy-EZ instead.

 

Place a call to TERF.

Put your mind at ease.

I've spoken at length with M. Tait about this topic. Of course he has no issue since we're generating renewed interest in his CD, but I have indeed found his background information on the topic to be quite calming, convincing, and sincere.

 

I'd expect what he wants now would be total and complete release from liability for what us knuckleheads who follow do.

I do to, and am proud to be a canard-building knucklehead!

[Chairboy]

Perhaps I wasn't clear before, I'm not building an OpenEZ. I'm a bit surprised at the vehemence of your response, Jon, and don't quite understand it.

 

If it's not a good idea, I'm confident it'll wither on the vine. If it is, then I expect folks will contribute and we'll resolve the legal status of the LongEZ appropriately so that the plane can continue being built without having to play internet lawyer.

 

I read part of your message as saying essentially "Don't ask, or he might say it's not kosher". This sounds kinda different from "It's OK, and he knows and is fine with all these LongEZ copies".

 

Just trying to help, and not trying to step on any toes here.

[HatSwitch]

I've spoken at length with M. Tait about this topic. Of course he has no issue since we're generating renewed interest in his CD, but I have indeed found his background information on the topic to be quite calming, convincing, and sincere.

Well spoken, Jon.
Myself, after spending some time on the phone with Matt, any latent doubts I might have had about going forward with the OPEN Project less a Guru-blessing were completely dissipated. Matt has heard the answer to this question direct from the horse’s mouth. The conversation alone (IMHO) was worth the cost of the CD package.

I also think Ben's heart is in the right place on this and sincerely wants to add value to the Open project. However, if he's not going to build an OPEN bird, his time might be better invested in his Cosy.
When my OPEN is done, it won’t be a Long-EZ, it will be one-of-a-kind with many cousins.

[Kent Ashton]

Hi guys!

 

I had an idea on how to firm up the status of this project. My idea: Let's write a letter together using a Wiki.

I appreciate your concern but I don't think Burt gives a darn who his building his design these days. His concern is avoiding liability. We can help him out by disassociating our airplanes from him. Call it something else. Modify it. Never represent that you used any plans derived from a Rutan design. That's the best thing you can do for Burt. Then, if you feel you owe him something, send him $500 in cash in a plain brown envelope.

-Kent

[SteveWrightNZ]

Greetings,

 

If this Wiki entry causes the OpenEZ project any harm please let me know immediately and I will take action.

 

Jon, it is unfair, divisive, and wrong to say CAI is unsupportive of OpenEZ.

 

 

best regards,

SteveWrightNZ

[Jon Matcho]

If this Wiki entry causes the OpenEZ project any harm please let me know immediately and I will take action.

I see references to the Open-EZ have been removed -- thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to continue soliciting a case for an open source Long-EZ. Heck, the Open-EZ could become a derivative if that happened. However, I do not believe this will happen. If you ask the question, in this case, my bet is that the answer will come back "no thank you".

 

Jon, it is unfair, divisive, and wrong to say CAI is unsupportive of OpenEZ.

What?! Please tell me where I said this, or at least where you're getting this idea.

 

I assume you're talking about the Canard Community Forum (or the Canard Aviation Forum -- what is its official name?) and not Canard Aviation, Inc. -- John Slade's company. I do not know if CAI (the company) is supportive or not.

 

I referred to 2-3 people at that forum who have an issue with the Open-EZ. That's hardly the broad stroke you're making.

[SteveWrightNZ]

I see references to the Open-EZ have been removed -- thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to continue soliciting a case for an open source Long-EZ. Heck, the Open-EZ could become a derivative if that happened. However, I do not believe this will happen. If you ask the question, in this case, my bet is that the answer will come back "no thank you".

Agreed. We are all working toward the same goal.

 

What?! Please tell me where I said this, or at least where you're getting this idea.

As quoted below, earlier in this thread. Please excuse me and disregard if the misunderstanding is mine.

 

I'd rather not see a letter over there on the CAI-related forum as that group, in general, appears rather unsupportive of the idea for one reason or another. Regardless, the Internet will do what it does.

I referred to 2-3 people at that forum who have an issue with the Open-EZ. That's hardly the broad stroke you're making.

Yes, and again, please excuse me if this is my embarrassing mistake.

 

 

best regards,

SteveWrightNZ

[Jon Matcho]

Thanks for pointing that out. That's not at all what I intended. Mike Skorija, AKA 'Dust', is a head guy of sorts over there. I should have just said that forum's admin has been unsupportive.

 

My bad, and I apologize for lumping everyone in there.

[SteveWrightNZ]

Thanks for pointing that out. That's not at all what I intended. Mike Skorija, AKA 'Dust', is a head guy of sorts over there. I should have just said that forum's admin has been unsupportive.

No worries, but I think you are mistaken. Mikes' comment to me in a private email was "As it stands, i think it is the correct avenue to go to bring back the long EZ". We are all on the same Team, Jon, and it will be a tear in our eye also - the day that the OpenEZs' goals are achieved.

 

 

best regards,

SteveWrightNZ

[Remi Khu]

Somebody please help me understand what is meant by "Open". By being "Open", does it mean that there is no longer intellectual property infringement?

 

As one who is obviously ignorant of this concept, the idea of disseminating copyrighted plans under the "open" umbrella is fishy, and borders on copyright infringement without permission from the plan owner.

 

Inquiring wants to know....

[cdavis]

Open generally means non-proprietary. Everyone is encouraged to contribute what they can to the effort, but no one owns the copyright to the final product.

[Remi Khu]

Open generally means non-proprietary. Everyone is encouraged to contribute what they can to the effort, but no one owns the copyright to the final product.

Firstly, nice write up on the latest Sports Aviation magazine!! You're so fortunate to have such a supportive wife as Cathy.

 

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Long EZ plan or for that matter, any of the RAF plans are proprietary in nature? If so, then by placing them in the open domain will make them non-proprietary? That sounds a lot like socialism to me. Does the plans owner have any input while his properties are being fleeced?

 

As I said, I could use some edumacation here.

[SteveWrightNZ]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Long EZ plan or for that matter, any of the RAF plans are proprietary in nature?

Clearly they are, or were, his copyrighted work, no matter how it is viewed.

 

If so, then by placing them in the open domain will make them non-proprietary? Does the plans owner have any input while his properties are being fleeced?

no. and if its truely "open", yes.

 

A GPL-style Open Project allows the Owner to retain Copyright, while distancing theirself from liability.

 

Paraphrasing from gnu.org - "The simplest way to make a work free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the work and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the work into a proprietary product. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the product in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away."

 

This is the main benefit from a proper Open License, such as the GPLD - that is, the work is "freed" into the public arena - it is free in terms of "free speech", not as in "free beer", that is, no person can restrict the rights or your copy. Any modified copy must be distributed with the same accompanying rights tha they had when they downloaded it.

 

Under a GPL-type license, You may modify and even sell a set of plans if you choose, but you may not restrict the rights of the person who bought it from you.

 

Further reading ;

 

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1

 

S

[Chairboy]

Also, an important distinction is that the current copyright owner is the ONLY person who can release something to an 'open source' license. This is not two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner, this is just asking Burt if he would be interested in releasing it so that development can continue under the name without any possible legal repercussions to him (with clear indication that building these planes will not be spitting in his face).

 

Socialism sucks, and GPL ain't socialism.

[SteveWrightNZ]

this is just asking Burt if he would be interested in releasing it so that development can continue under the name without any possible legal repercussions to him (with clear indication that building these planes will not be spitting in his face).

This is the whole thing, exactly and precisely, in a nutshell, IMO. It may even be, that the Long/OpenEZ begins a new burst of life, on account that Burt is seen to publicly "Approve" of them being built.

 

S

[RGlos]

This is the whole thing, exactly and precisely, in a nutshell, IMO. It may even be, that the Long/OpenEZ begins a new burst of life, on account that Burt is seen to publicly "Approve" of them being built.

 

S

And then what happens if he says no. Is it then so simple as to proceed without the yes.

 

I am for the Open Project. Not so sure what is gained trying to get an answer that we already know, or worse get set back.

 

He has already said, as I understand it, do what you want just don't call it a Long EZ or associate it with him.

 

If you want a real answer get a legal opinion

[SteveWrightNZ]

He has already said, as I understand it, do what you want just don't call it a Long EZ or associate it with him.

I understand this. But there is a better way, and that is a proper Open License, viz GPLD. If the right people show this to Burt, and do it the right way, at the right time, it is possible, even likely, that everyone gets a lot more than they bargained for - Burt included, and that the LongEZ name stays up in lights forever - a marvelous thing to behold.

 

S

 

<OT>gak, how do I unsubscribe from a thread?

[Remi Khu]

If the crux of releasing a copyrighted material into the public domain requires consent of the copyright holder, what happens if Burt rejects the open letter for consent? That would mean that any release into public domain will be illegal.

 

The current thinking of releasing his plans without consent is asinine, in light of the concern over his impending rejection. The liability rests squarely upon his shoulders.

 

I also don't understand the idea of changing the name of his plans to, say, OpenEZ will absolve him from any liability. Isn't that analogous to merely changing the title of a thesis, yet keeping the content intact? That's simply plagiarism. Even Nat Puffer changed some wordings in the Long EZ plans to make it 'his'.

 

This matter may need a legal eagle's blessing, but it's pretty black and white.

[SteveWrightNZ]

If the crux of releasing a copyrighted material into the public domain requires consent of the copyright holder, what happens if Burt rejects the open letter for consent?

Then we are right where we are now - "go do what ever you like -just dont call it a Long-EZ."

 

The current thinking of releasing his plans without consent is asinine, in light of the concern over his impending rejection. The liability rests squarely upon his shoulders.

perhaps, but that is speculation - he may approve if the right approach is made by the right people for the right reason. The right license completely removes his liabilty, in the future, and quite likely in the past as well. (OPINION!)

 

I also don't understand the idea of changing the name of his plans to, say, OpenEZ will absolve him from any liability.

It doesn't. Under the current situation that was simply his wishes - don't call it a Long-EZ. The only thing that will absolve him of responsibility is for him to give up his copyright (noooo!) and release it into the PD (OPINION!) or release it under a License that specifically excludes Liability, such as the GPLD. Under the GPLD, you have no right to download the plans to begin with if you intend to hold anyone responsible. If you DO attempt to hold anyone responsible you are in breach of the License conditions and therefore were never entitled to use them to begin with.

 

In the GPL world, you can modify, rename, and distribute it as you wish - and the license specifically allows this, but you have to give recipients all the rights that you had when you downloaded it. Overall, the GPL is impressive in the permanent freedom it provides. No person can hijack the project.

 

S