Legality of CADing components before build season?

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

My take on the rules this year was that you can use designs from prior years as long as the CAD were open sourced. I wouldn't apply this to all models though, for example, making a model of something that you already have and plan to use, however the manufacturer doesn't release CAD Models.

The 2011 rules allow the reuse of software if it is open sourced, but there is nothing in there about open sourcing CAD files.

The relevant rules section is "fabrication schedule" on page 12 of the robot section of the manual.

The most pertinent passage:

Example: A TEAM designs and builds a two-speed shifting transmission during the fall as a training exercise. When designing their competition ROBOT, they utilize all the design principles they learned. To optimize the transmission design for their ROBOT, they improve the transmission gear ratios and reduce the size, and build two new transmissions, and place them on the ROBOT. All parts of this process are permitted activities.
Example: The same TEAM realizes that the transmission designed and built in the fall perfectly fits their need for a transmission to drive the ROBOT arm. They build an exact copy of the transmission from the original design plans, and bolt it to the ROBOT. This would be prohibited, as the transmission – although fabricated during the competition season – was built from detailed designs developed prior to kick-off.

[Duke461]

Thanks for all the feedback, guys. As you might guess, brian and I, being the two CADders on the team, were discussing this.
In my opinion, i think it needs to be done from scratch starting day 1. R22 was a big reason for my opinion, as Alan discussed earlier. R22 goes on past what Alan posted to further refute the aforementioned "plan".
The main reason for this thread is because we have a sponsor that can take a converted CAD file, and laser cut it and make the flanges (not laser flanges ), assuming we use sheet metal. We did it that way this year for our Meccanum drivetrain, and we really liked it. And, knowing my team, there's a good chance a lot of people will strongly push for the same drivetrain as last year. So, that brought up the thought of, would we be allowed to just re-order the same part we made last year? My conclusion was no.
Then the possibility of it being a COTS item was brought into play. Brian pointed out a rule concerning COTS to prove it could be ok:

For the purposes of the FRC, generally available software modules obtained from open sources (e.g. professional publications, commonly used FRC community accessible web resources, industry source code repositories, etc.) ... shall be considered COTS items.

So, he argued that if we "release" an open source CAD of our drivetrain to the public (CD), then its considered a COTS item. That kind of makes sense to me, but i feel like that was not FIRST's intent.
Nonetheless, my plan was just to remake it from scratch, and add some "improvements", using the previous one as a reference. It'd only take a day tops. That way you made this design during the Build Season. In my opinion, that would be no different than a team reconstructing a replica drivetrain out of aluminum box that they used the previous year, or remaking an arm like 233 and 148 did (in NO way am i trying to offend them) .
I think its better safe than sorry, and the most GP solution to this. As for whether the 2011 rules are still in effect, i would argue that it doesn't matter if those are the rules that HAVE to be followed; rather, those are the rules that should be respected, and abided by, whether or not they remain in effect.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Duke461

So, he argued that if we "release" an open source CAD of our drivetrain to the public (CD), then its considered a COTS item. That kind of makes sense to me, but i feel like that was not FIRST's intent.

Don't read it like that. Remember, COTS is only meaningful in reference to a component or mechanism. The idea that a computer file is "a ROBOT part in its most basic configuration, which can not be disassembled without damaging or destroying the part, or altering its fundamental function" (i.e. a component) is remarkably shaky—even when referring to a program running on the robot (or a compiled equivalent). It's certainly inapplicable with respect to the software or the CAD files used to create a part, but not actually present on the robot. (Besides: that statement your colleague recalled is from the blue explanatory text, not from a rule. It conveys intent, but doesn't change the meaning of a rule in the event of a conflict.)

The way to make your drivetrain COTS is to sell it, as a vendor (with all the requirements and complications that arise from that status—see in particular the 3^rd through 5^th paragraphs of 2011's section 4.3).

Also remember, if your sponsor's personnel (in their capacity as team members) build stuff for you after the kickoff from raw materials, those parts don't have to be COTS. They're just fabricated items.

Originally Posted by Duke461

Nonetheless, my plan was just to remake it from scratch, and add some "improvements", using the previous one as a reference. It'd only take a day tops. That way you made this design during the Build Season. In my opinion, that would be no different than a team reconstructing a replica drivetrain out of aluminum box that they used the previous year, or remaking an arm like 233 and 148 did (in NO way am i trying to offend them) .

Given that you're improving it, this should be fine.

Originally Posted by Duke461

As for whether the 2011 rules are still in effect, i would argue that it doesn't matter if those are the rules that HAVE to be followed; rather, those are the rules that should be respected, and abided by, whether or not they remain in effect.

Do you mean that as a practical matter, or as a moral principle ?

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Do you mean that as a practical matter, or as a moral principle ?

Kind of both. Sorry to not supply the answer you wanted. I guess im leaning more on the side of morality.
Thanks for the feedback btw
EDIT: Think of it as a moral principle that in turn results in one treating it as a practical matter.