Several years ago I
questioned the new rule concerning use of designs developed outside of the approved fabrication schedule. The rules as written then appeared to prohibit the use of designs posted on ChiefDelphi.
The question now is if the 2009 rules actually allow the use of these designs. In section 8.2 Definitions under COTS there is the following:
Quote:
|
Example 3: a team obtains openly available design drawings from a professional publication during the pre-season, and uses them to fabricate a gearbox for their ROBOT during the build period following kick-off. The design drawings would be considered a COTS item, and may be used as “raw material” to fabricate the gearbox. The finished gearbox itself would be a FABRICATED ITEM, and not a COTS item.
|
So is ChiefDelphi a “professional publication”? If it is, why is there a specific rule <R65>, for allowing software code obtained from open sources such as “commonly used FRC community-accessible web resources”. This rule is also cited as an example in rule <R24> for code posted in “a generally accessible public forum”.
Should hardware design be given the same weight and definition to remove any ambiguity as to legality? I propose that a rule similar to rule <R65> be included for hardware design.
<R??> For the purposes of the FIRST Robotics Competition, generally available hardware design drawings obtained from open sources (e.g. professional publications, commonly used FRC community-accessible web resources, VENDOR design files, etc.) that are not specifically affiliated with individual FRC teams shall be considered COTS items, and may be used.
Thoughts anyone?