[dsp1234]

The law is not without context, nor is the law not without exceptions.

Indeed there is a whole set of exceptions related to "Exception to application of ORS 672.002 to 672.325"[0].

You may be interested in ORS 672.060(6)(a and b):

  (6) The performance of engineering work by a person, or by full-time employees of the person, provided:
    (a) The work is in connection with or incidental to the operations of the person; and
    (b) The engineering work is not offered directly to the public.

Which basically covers the run of the mills, "I'm doing math and engineering in my backyard, or my friend's front yard, or for my neighbor".

Indeed, this is one of the affirmative defenses that he tried using, but was rejected.

Basically, you can't just stop at a definition in law, you have to read the full law to know what the law says.

[0] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060

[echion]

Understood - I read those exceptions and his attempt to use them. Obviously neither exception applies; but it's the fact that the definition of engineering in ORS 672.005(b)[0] is so broad is worrying. Saying that I can do some math and create a nice graph for my neighbor, but not post it on imgur without a fine, is a step too far for my taste.

[0] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005

[anigbrowl]

Please do yourself a favor and read this for a while instead. Taking bits of statute in isolation and extrapolating from them is a Bad Idea, and if ou ever get sued it will impair your ability to understand your own case. I've seen what that looks like close-up and it's not pretty.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/l...