novatic14/MANPADS-System-Launcher-and-Rocket

> If it has no detonation charge, it's not a weapon! You skimmed through the text you posted above, to make the case why it's illegal to share this here, and skipped portions of the same text that identify prohibition, as you probably found them inconvenient to making your case of illegality!

ITAR doesn't restrict weapons; it restricts sharing information that could be used to _make_ weapons or otherwise advance military goals. This has famously been used in the past to restrict sharing encryption source code, which is obviously not a weapon itself.

It also is vague by design, ending up prohibiting a lot of innocuous things with the intent of discouraging people from trying to bypass the regulations with technicalities. Those innocuous cases, while technically illegal, are basically never prosecuted. This project is explicitly about creating something for military use, and is unlikely to be given such leniency.

What exact sections are those? I’ve tried very hard to find reasons why this would be legal, since it’s quite strange that a school project is subject to export control. Please help me out

If it has no detonation charge, it's not a weapon! You skimmed through the text you posted above, to make the case why it's illegal to share this here, and skipped portions of the same text that identify prohibition, as you probably found them inconvenient to making your case of illegality!

> @gmaynez How about about GPLv3 , that any derivative work is forced to be opensourced, so that proprietary entities can't parasite on open source like it happens with MIT etc.?

Not very applicable for hardware... The equivalent of GPL would be CERN-OHL-S (strongly reciprocal).

The equivalent of MPL is CERN-OHL-W (weakly reciprocal), and the equivalent for MIT/Apache is CERN-OHL-P (permissive).

What many people ignore about strong reciprocal/copyleft licenses is that they can "bite you back", as once you accept contributions the project gets locked to that license, preventing even you as original author to monetize or adapt it to your licensing needs. Therefore, they should only be used when you want to become a community (owned) project, like Blender.

Unfortunately, many chose to "desecrate" strong copyleft licenses into business source licenses by forcing contributors to sign a contributor license agreement (CLA) that enables the original copyright holder to do with your code as...

> It also just straight up doesn't guide. The flight firmware has an _optimistic_ roll controller, but otherwise has no guidance. If you want to see actual guidance, I have landers with a proven accuracy of 0.5m GPS on my profile.
>
> This is a glorified sugar rocket stuffed in a PLA tube with some electronics glued onto it. Wild that it gets 1k+ stars.

I have some serious doubts the author has done the aero analysis required to make a canard-based system do much at all, frankly. I wouldn't be surprised if a basic PID controller is functionally incapable of it by nature.

Your landers look quite interesting, have you published any videos/writeups of the launches?

> So is screwing kids on a private island, but apparently the government is fine with that.

Somehow I don't think that will do very much to convince the judge if an ITAR suit happens.

@gmaynez How about about GPLv3 , that any derivative work is forced to be opensourced, so that proprietary entities can't parasite on open source like it happens with MIT etc.?

> Hi, I'm fairly certain this is illegal

So is screwing kids on a private island, but apparently the government is fine with that.

It also just straight up doesn't guide. The flight firmware has an _optimistic_ roll controller, but otherwise has no guidance. If you want to see actual guidance, I have landers with a proven accuracy of 0.5m GPS on my profile.

This is a glorified sugar rocket stuffed in a PLA tube with some electronics glued onto it. Wild that it gets 1k+ stars.