Thread Tools
Feb 09, 2015, 06:19 PM
Registered User
If you use GPL licensed code, the source code has to be available for those that request it. There is nothing confusing about this. What you have basically done is just violated the agreement when you used the openLRS code, released it, and then refused to share the code when requested. If you coded the software from scratch, great - but you didn't.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....cePostedPublic

"if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."

Link is still here: http://www.itluxembourg.lu/site/wp-c...pdater_0.7.zip

As a software developer, you should know better and understand basic licensing agreements.
Last edited by qtfsniper; Feb 09, 2015 at 06:24 PM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 10, 2015, 03:43 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by qtfsniper
If you use GPL licensed code, the source code has to be available for those that request it. There is nothing confusing about this. What you have basically done is just violated the agreement when you used the openLRS code, released it, and then refused to share the code when requested. If you coded the software from scratch, great - but you didn't.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....cePostedPublic

"if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."

Link is still here: http://www.itluxembourg.lu/site/wp-c...pdater_0.7.zip

As a software developer, you should know better and understand basic licensing agreements.
Thanks to all **** like you... now we don't have the Flipflap work anymore. This guy worked for 1,5 year for free, for us and the software that he make work very well! i'm using it on all my quad without any problem. I tried whit the openlrsng and it sucks! Thank you again!
Feb 10, 2015, 05:48 AM
FPV, RC and more........
IdefixRC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by qtfsniper
If you use GPL licensed code, the source code has to be available for those that request it. There is nothing confusing about this. What you have basically done is just violated the agreement when you used the openLRS code, released it, and then refused to share the code when requested. If you coded the software from scratch, great - but you didn't.

Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....cePostedPublic

"if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."

Link is still here: http://www.itluxembourg.lu/site/wp-c...pdater_0.7.zip

As a software developer, you should know better and understand basic licensing agreements.
Your right - maybe
A matter of principle - for some
A loss to the community - definitely

Thanks for the work so far FlipFlap. Hope to see you back in action soon.
Feb 10, 2015, 06:34 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Yes I'm working on a completely different project doing exactly the same thing, I'll keep you posted.
Feb 10, 2015, 10:34 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
Yes I'm working on a completely different project doing exactly the same thing, I'll keep you posted.
Now what will I do with the 3 Orange 1W Tx I have heading my way? I guess they could be Christmas ornaments.

Do you have a timeline on when you may have your other project up and running? I hate the idea of having to order RF900 telemetry radios....

I sympathize with your plight, although you should have realized that that GPL license was going to be an issue. Hope you can figure out a proper way to monetize your work (if that is the plan). Good luck.
Feb 10, 2015, 11:19 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Dornan
Now what will I do with the 3 Orange 1W Tx I have heading my way? I guess they could be Christmas ornaments.

Do you have a timeline on when you may have your other project up and running? I hate the idea of having to order RF900 telemetry radios....

I sympathize with your plight, although you should have realized that that GPL license was going to be an issue. Hope you can figure out a proper way to monetize your work (if that is the plan). Good luck.
Well, it's still possible to flash the units and continue like you planned?
Feb 10, 2015, 11:22 PM
Registered User
It's a GPL license project, so just request the source code from him. Fines/settlements for violating GPL are pretty steep, the last one I saw was $90,000
Feb 10, 2015, 11:45 PM
Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakestew
It's a GPL license project, so just request the source code from him. Fines/settlements for violating GPL are pretty steep, the last one I saw was $90,000
Oh ya I bet that happens like all the time. Lets see we will prosecute some one for giving free software away for (wait for it) free.
Latest blog entry: UC4H: Gimbal flight test
Feb 11, 2015, 01:06 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Just to place things in context, I'm not Microsoft using some open source tool to make money.

I'm in discussion with Flytron since monthes, and can't release the source before, as this would make no sense.

I provide free work for you, it's not just a change of a few lines of code, it's almost complete rework of the original code.

If more users are using it, more users will buy hardware from Flytron, so it's beneficial for him, not for me. Do you see the difference with a Microsoft ?

The model of Flytron is to give free software, and paying hardware, and I think it's a good model.

But some people have decided to copy the hardware, and make profit of it. Do you really think this was OK for Flytron ? You can see in his forum that he was completely devastated when he underestood that he chose the wrong licence, and that HK and DTF UHF were free to copy and sell his hardware without giving him a penny, or even asking permission. From there he completely stopped development of OpenLRS.

Was it good for the community ? Flytron is one of the most prolific maker of innovative hardware, often small things, but useful, exactly what the hobbyists need.

But there was a problem with my firmware, it was not compatible with DTF UHF. So some people don't get money from it.

In addition, it provides a way to make a bidirectional 1W link, without having to buy a DTF UHF 1W RX.

So of course I get a lot of pressure from them to release the code, but I believe it's for the wrong reasons. They can excite the people and say I'm stealing something, but actually it's the opposite, I'm the one working with the copyright owner. I'm not the one selling copies of its inventions.

Of course people will argue, but look honestly at my arguments, and I can provide more links about Flytron opinion if you want.
Feb 11, 2015, 12:02 PM
Registered User
mashednz's Avatar
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...postcount=6668 This post may be of interest. Flytron seems to take a pretty clear view of how open openlrs projects should be.
Feb 11, 2015, 02:55 PM
Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by mashednz
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...postcount=6668 This post may be of interest. Flytron seems to take a pretty clear view of how open openlrs projects should be.
Notice the use of the word sell. Can not close to sell.
Latest blog entry: UC4H: Gimbal flight test
Feb 11, 2015, 03:02 PM
Registered User
mashednz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_kelly
Notice the use of the word sell. Can not close to sell.
"or you cannot use same name or reference my project for closed one."

The GPL also doesn't make any distinction about selling or not.
Feb 11, 2015, 04:25 PM
Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by mashednz
"or you cannot use same name or reference my project for closed one."

The GPL also doesn't make any distinction about selling or not.
The only closed aspect of this is between the original developer and the contributor. There is no harm here, hence no issue. Get a life.
Latest blog entry: UC4H: Gimbal flight test
Feb 11, 2015, 04:48 PM
Registered User
mashednz's Avatar
Wow cranky much. If there isn't source code available it is totally closed source. So how is that just between the contributor and the original developer who used a gpl licence.
Feb 11, 2015, 05:57 PM
Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by mashednz
Wow cranky much. If there isn't source code available it is totally closed source. So how is that just between the contributor and the original developer who used a gpl licence.
The grouchyness is because this small community has lost a valuable contributor providing significant improvement to a system for specific users. The GPL is designed to protect the original developer who wants to share his/her work without risking it being stolen and resold for profit in a closed product. The contributor and the original developer are in talks to possibly join forces to create a better product. Here the original developer has not been harmed, no code stolen and nothing sold for profit. The GPL is not designed to quarantee you anything. If the source to the contribution is not available and no profit is derived from it then there is no harm.
Latest blog entry: UC4H: Gimbal flight test


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools