7
$\begingroup$

With the latest update to ITAR rules, it looks like covered GNSS receivers are defined as follows:

(2) Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiving equipment, as follows:

(i) GNSS receiving equipment specially designed for military applications (MT if designed or modified for airborne applications and capable of providing navigation information at speeds in excess of 600 m/s);

(ii) Global Positioning System (GPS) receiving equipment specially designed for encryption or decryption (e.g., Y-Code, M-Code) of GPS precise positioning service (PPS) signals (MT if designed or modified for airborne applications);

(iii) GNSS receiving equipment specially designed for use with an antenna described in Category XI(c)(10) (MT if designed or modified for airborne applications); or

(iv) GNSS receiving equipment specially designed for use with rockets, missiles, SLVs, drones, or unmanned air vehicle systems capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km (MT);

NB: MT is an abbreviation for Missile Technology (Control Regime)

Do open source software defined GPS receivers fall under these laws? In particular, point 2.i is quite worrying: while they are probably not specifically designed for airborne applications, I think they probably are capable of working airborne, and they can certainly produce a position fix at speeds in excess of 600 m/s.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ searching the site for GPS firmware provides some insight, it's possible that a GPS chip for "civilian use" could have its firmware user-modified/updated so that it could work beyond certain speed and altitude limits, cf. references to ladyada in this and this and this. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Commented Apr 14, 2020 at 2:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ worth noting that ITAR/EAR does not make covered items illegal to build or possess. It governs the export of said items (though the definition of "export" is fraught with peril if you decide you want to toe that line -- e.g., conversations can be considered "exports") $\endgroup$
    – Tristan
    Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ Yes open source should be legal and stand above any other laws. See here: law.stackexchange.com/questions/41212/… $\endgroup$
    – Kozuch
    Commented Feb 18, 2021 at 16:31

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.