SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The peer-reviewed open access journal PLoS ONE describes the validation of a 3D-printed stethoscope which will soon have plans available under a free and open license. The cost to make an entire stethoscope using these plans is estimated to be between $2.5 to $5 USD. The resulting stethoscope apparently functions as well as the market gold standard, the Littmann Cardiology III.
The modern acoustic stethoscope is a useful clinical tool used to detect subtle, pathological changes in cardiac, pulmonary and vascular sounds. Currently, brand-name stethoscopes are expensive despite limited innovations in design or fabrication in recent decades. Consequently, the high cost of high quality, brand name models serves as a barrier to clinicians practicing in various settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries. In this publication, we describe the design and validation of a low-cost open-access (Free/Libre) 3D-printed stethoscope which is comparable to the Littmann Cardiology III for use in low-access clinics.
[...] and the dissemination of plans and bills of material through a Free and open source license.
All the raw data needed to reproduce the analysis, including graphs, figures, and conclusions, are found on Github at https://github.com/GliaX/Stethoscope/tree/master/Testing
From PLoS : Validation of an effective, low cost, Free/open access 3D-printed stethoscope
[Ed: as of posting there is no license on the Github documents. Thus as per the Berne Convention it is not yet freely available, until explicitly published under an open license such as CC or similar. ]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pino P on Friday March 16 2018, @08:52PM (5 children)
I've filed an issue about choosing a license [github.com], citing the summary of this story.
(Score: 2) by cocaine overdose on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:16AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:47AM
In a comment to the issue, maintainer "tareko" stated that the project had planned to use the TAPR OHL (this [tapr.org]).
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:51AM (2 children)
I've filed an issue about choosing a license [github.com], citing the summary of this story.
Thanks for contacting them, Pino P. Lack of a license has been a common oversight at Github which leaves many project unavailable because the default is all right reserved [infoworld.com] for any document or code. It used to be a problem which they seem to have fixed in recent years by pushing projects to decide on a license [github.com]
One of the stethoscope team there responded on Github, but seemed to miss the point that the plans are not a stethoscope but simply blueprints of sorts. As documents , they are definitely copyrighted. However, with 3D printing I expect there to be a lot of confusion between patents and copyright until afficianados and engineers decide what to do about it. IANAL but I would definitely call these instructions a type of code, which falls under copyright.
Looking around I notice that the current boom in 3D printing and developments around 3D printing is in a large part due to many progress-inhibiting patents expiring [techcrunch.com] and being removed from the hardware. Maybe all patents should go, not just US software patents. It could be that there is no baby in that bathwater after all.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:06AM (1 child)
That's not reasonable in the case of projects that are PD.
If the intent of the author(s) is clearly stated to release original code/content to the public domain, no license can reasonably be required. Any nonsense to the contrary should be ignored insofar as it is practicable, as is the case with all ridiculous / unnecessary / unreasonable law.
In the cases where some regressive countries do not recognize release into the public domain, those countries should be treated as bandits, wholly outside the pale: it is best to ignore them. It's their problem to solve: not yours. Unless you live in one. In which case, it is best if you fight back against such IP terrorism.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:31AM
That's not reasonable in the case of projects that are PD.
A statement of being in the public domain is still needed if the project is not hosted on a site which by context proves that the code is in the public domain. The obivous place for such as statement is the usual "LICENSE" file found in all reputable repositories. That would settle the question for everybody involved.
Public domain should be quite clear but in many cases it is not. Other times source is hard to get at. Take VistA as an example of both. M$ Google-bombed it into oblivion 10+ years ago so if you search for it, look for FOIA VistA instead.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.