There is nothing wrong with making and selling clones in accordance with a
licensing agreement; misappropriating intellectual property and selling for a
profit is worthy of criticism - as is theft in general. I'm not saying Rawson did
this (I don't know what arrangements exist between him and NP).
Now if you made a DIY project for yourself from NPs recipe book, than decided
to sell it to recover your costs and time, that would seem fair and ok in most
anyone's book. However, a production line of "F5" clones brought to
market, absent a license to do so, would not be ok. And it is also not Ok to buy
a product if you have full knowledge that it is the result of the "theft" of
intellectual property (which for some reason some seem to find
unobjectionable) -- intellectual property is just as real and worthy of
protection as tangible goods IMHO.
Now if there is no inventiveness in the Pass designs, and simply an application
of a public domain circuit design, then I suppose anyone can use them, but
even then I'm not sure it would be ok to sell it and brand it as a clone of a
better know company with credibility and brand equity. If you want to serve the
needs of budget segment anyone is free to do so, but not by copying someone
else's work without a licensing agreement (the Robin Hood model).
Again, I'm not saying one way or the other if Rawson falls into one camp or the
other here as I am not privy to any information on arrangements made with NP
- I understand he is a hobbyist and does this stuff for fun - though there does
seem to be an awful lot of Rawson stuff out there for a mere DIY hobby - so
maybe he has some licensing rights to copy and sell Pass/First Watt clones.
