Licence change?

Discussions related to the firmware code development
KC7RBW
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:23 am

Re: Complete Corresponding Source Code (GPLv2 Section 3)

Post by KC7RBW » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:47 pm

g0hww wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:26 pm
these are cases where I feel that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.
I agreed with that in this case too, but a few thoughts changed my mind:

Probably the most important one is that what I loved about OpenGD77 is that I could modify it myself - and I did. I made a few minor UI changes and contributed them. A few were accepted. I converted the documentation to Markdown so that it would be easier to update it. Then I saw that DCS wasn't supported at all and thought "I could probably implement that" and I did. It was fun! Without the source code for the current versions, I can't do that anymore.

Another is that some (not a lot, but definitely some) of my own work is in OpenGD77, and I contributed that work under the GPLv2 license in good faith. That means that my copyright is being infringed. It's not just OpenGD77's license to me - it's my license to OpenGD77, and it says that if you share a work that includes my work, you have to share the source code too.

We let sleeping dogs lie because they might bite if we wake them. I think the maintainers will do the right thing and release the full source code, rather than stop sharing their work. I don't think the sleeping dog is going to bite me, or you. These are good people who care about the work they're doing and the community around it.
Andrew | KC7RBW | ajorg

g0hww
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:56 pm

Re: Complete Corresponding Source Code (GPLv2 Section 3)

Post by g0hww » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:18 pm

I can't and won't argue with anything that you have said there. Your assessment of the nature of the metaphorical sleepings dogs is hopefully spot on. I hadn't appreciated that you had contributed to OpenGD77 under the GPL2 yourself and thank you for your work. My piss/chips analogy seems to fail in this case. I think your motives are reasonable and hope that things play out well.

KC7RBW
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:23 am

Re: Licence change?

Post by KC7RBW » Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:23 pm

VK3KYY wrote:
Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:07 am
The codebase I am now using is not the same as the codebase in the repo, it is copyright me and some other developers and not publicly available.
Roger, Am I among the "some other developers" or did you replace every line of code I wrote before ever releasing a "not publicly available" firmware?
Andrew | KC7RBW | ajorg

VK3KYY
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:25 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Licence change?

Post by VK3KYY » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:47 pm

KC7RBW wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:23 pm
VK3KYY wrote:
Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:07 am
The codebase I am now using is not the same as the codebase in the repo, it is copyright me and some other developers and not publicly available.
Roger, Am I among the "some other developers" or did you replace every line of code I wrote before ever releasing a "not publicly available" firmware?
Not that it is necessary, as the license was always totally invalid.... but the code has been rewritten.

I no longer contains any code written by you.

All this constant troll behaviour makes me wonder why I bother wasting my time on this project.

I will review whether I continue making new features publically available.

ok1pt
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:38 am

Re: Licence change?

Post by ok1pt » Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:06 am

VK3KYY wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:47 pm
KC7RBW wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:23 pm
VK3KYY wrote:
Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:07 am
The codebase I am now using is not the same as the codebase in the repo, it is copyright me and some other developers and not publicly available.
Roger, Am I among the "some other developers" or did you replace every line of code I wrote before ever releasing a "not publicly available" firmware?
Not that it is necessary, as the license was always totally invalid.... but the code has been rewritten.

I no longer contains any code written by you.

All this constant troll behaviour makes me wonder why I bother wasting my time on this project.

I will review whether I continue making new features publically available.
Hi!
I'm a bit sad from this situation... I don't understand what's happening there. There are people (including me), which like the open software and tend to join such projects. Somebody helps more, somebody less, depending to their possibilities, but they want to help and learn something new. When the status of the project changes and the "openness" is lost, they may feel disappointed, so they will ask, as they want to continue. I read this and related threads carefully, because I'm also interested in return of this project to its original status. I never saw any rude or impolite posting. So why to call them "trolls" ? They aren't doing anything wrong, they just like your work and want to help with it! So, please, weight again your reactions, breath deeply and do a countdown before answering to these posts.
With regards,
Pavel

KC7RBW
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:23 am

Re: Licence change?

Post by KC7RBW » Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:01 am

Roger, did you also replace all of Jonathan Naylor's MMDVM code?

I'm not trolling - I care about the firmware being open. I think it was wrong of you to close it and I want to persuade you to change your mind so it can be open again.
Andrew | KC7RBW | ajorg

oh1fss
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 11:53 am

Re: Licence change?

Post by oh1fss » Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:59 am

The primary reason why I started using OpenGD77 is that it is open source. I want to learn about ham radio, electronics, software... I want to see what's under the hood.

Open source encourages people to test new versions for free. And write good manuals for free. And in bug tracking the more eyes you have the better.

Open source is a safe bet, because if something happens to the current developers, others can continue.

Joe Taylor K1JT is a hero, because he created an open source protocol and software WSJT. Who remembers any more digital modes such as ROS or RFSM-8000 which were not open source?

It is possible to distribute software with both an open source and commercial licenses, for example see Qt

So please, keep OpenGD77 open!

g0hww
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:56 pm

Re: Licence change?

Post by g0hww » Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:07 pm

If the code is no longer "contaminated" (i don't like using that word, but it is obvious what it means) by code released under the GPL, then perhaps it could be relicensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Share-Alike licence:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

KC7RBW
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:23 am

Re: Licence change?

Post by KC7RBW » Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:55 pm

VK3KYY wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:47 pm
Not that it is necessary, as the license was always totally invalid.... but the code has been rewritten.
"totally invalid" is a stretch. I've described a remedy for the AMBE problem (merge it into the firmware at upload time instead of build time) and the only part of the license that's invalid is the addition of a non-commercial clause, which the license itself doesn't allow adding. Your license from anyone who contributed (or from whom you copied with permission, as with MMDVM) is GPL-2.0 unless they specified other terms or have since granted you other terms.

Without that license, you only have permission for code you wholly wrote yourself, and that isn't a derivative of someone else's work. With the license, you are free to do what you're doing, but the license requires that you share the source code.

The whole point of GPL-2.0 is to ensure that nobody who distributes binaries can also keep parts of it secret. "Free as in Freedom" means that the code stays Free, and explicitly not that someone can't make money off it, just that the price of making money off it is also sharing the source.

And yes, the license explicitly disallows additional restrictions.

It's ironic that you decided to make your code private because you didn't like that someone was selling installation services on eBay. They may have violated the eBay Terms of Service and the invalid non-commercial clause on the license, but there was no evidence that they violated the terms of the GPL license. While you, unless you and the others actually clean-room reimplemented every line of GPL code in the entire codebase that you didn't write yourselves or obtain separate terms for, would actually be infringing copyright if you don't provide the source code for every build you shared, as I've politely but firmly requested.

I find it plausible you may have replaced my own contributions by now. I find it impossibly unlikely that you replaced all of the MMDVM code. If I have to I can decompile the firmwares to show if you have or not. That sounds like a lot of work I'd rather not do.

Please just do the right thing and make OpenGD77 open again. If it makes you feel better, also change how the AMBE blob gets integrated so that the binaries you post can be fully licensed and individuals have to integrate the unlicensed blob themselves.

I believe you can make a good choice here without being coerced. Is it really worth copyright infringement to keep some dude on eBay from making a quick buck from someone who doesn't want to learn how to do it themselves? Have you even accomplished that if you're still publishing firmware builds?

Especially if you're thinking about just giving up because this is not worth the frustration, release the code so that others can take up the reins like you did when Kai was no longer interested. I think the project is better off in your care though, and I hope you don't give up.
Andrew | KC7RBW | ajorg

Post Reply