I recently re-subscribed to this list after a couple of years away from it, and glad to see the quality of discussions remains high. This debate is complex and I find it interesting, please keep it on the list. The variety of kayak designs is one of the great attractions of our sport. I reckon that most variations in design have probably already been done before though, true innovations being rare, so all design to some extent is ripping off someone else before you. "a long narrow pointy boat with decks - you can't build that, its my design". I think not. I've also yet to find a commercial design that I don't want to modify in some way. If we take the nadgee/max discussion at face value it would also seem apparent that it is entirely possible to independently come up with the same shapes. There is after all a lot of precedent for co-evolution in the natural world. The legal issues do however mirror in many ways the licence/legal issues in software design, where opportunity for re-using code or ideas are legion. Licence models exist in the software world from highly controlling legal agreements to open source (which nonetheless usually have conditions attached). I think if a designer attaches conditions to use or sale of their designs then that is their privilege and should be respected. When you buy into a commercial design you buy into the designers conditions. My personal preference is for the open source ethic though which I believe can often develop ideas more readily than more closed commercial development. My only kayak design, the harpoon (a 19ft by 19inch beam play boat http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~ltu006/images/kayak/stitchnglue/, unashamedly copies hard chine Greenland shapes). I would like to see 'Harpoons' built by as many people who would enjoy or learn from them, and thus if anyone would like the lines they are welcome to them ... I have but two conditions 1. that they aren't built for commercial profit and 2. builders let me know how they get on with the design. Similarly if anyone wishes to modify my shape, I'd be happy if they do so as long as they don't blame me for the resulting loss in performance ;-) Incidentally 1. I most likely wouldn't have got around to drawing or building this boat if it wasn't for lurking on this and the former wave~length list. Incidentally 2. I most likely wouldn't have drawn it without Gregg Carlson's free for non commercial use hull design program, and if I were to sell the design I violate his conditions .... Incidentally 3. The cockpit would be a different shape if I hadn't had a pintail sitting around when I made it! Incidetally 4. The boat would be a completely different shape if I hadn't paddled all of the kayaks I paddled before I made it! Cheers Colin www.kayakscotland.com -----Original Message----- This is exactly the sort of design process that produces better and different boats. I think this is a permissible and creative method of trying out ideas. But if Rob Bryant adopted Matt's attitude, would a chop down of his design be a rip off? Does the Chupacabras demand royalties? I don't think so. The Seguin was just a starting point. Both boats look great. Is the stitch and glue hull combined with a fabric deck watertight and robust? Cheers, PT *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Aug 11 2004 - 06:53:24 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:16 PDT