OpenGD77

See the announcement post for context.

We may be overreacting. There are many operators who might rather pay to have someone else install a firmware than install one themselves, and 20 GBP (about 26 USD / 36 AUD) doesn't sound like an entirely unreasonable amount to charge for that service. It's about on par with MARS/CAP mod service from a vendor (also very easy in some cases, just desoldering a resistor).

Many other operators will agree that it's not hard to install the firmware, and probably your local club has someone who'd be happy to do it for you for free, but that doesn't mean that fits everyone's needs.

I will also not be updating the repo with even the Release versions of source code, to prevent these vendors compiling versions which are locked to individual users, if that happens.

If you share builds of the firmware, the GPL-2.0 license requires you to share your modifications. Not complying with the terms of the license means that you no longer have any rights in the portions of the software that you don't personally own the copyright on. You don't have to share the code on GitHub, but you do have to share it, and it has to be complete.

The whole point of copyleft licenses like GPL-2.0 is to ensure that you won't do this. Let's just keep it free please, even if that sometimes means someone can make some money because of it.

Hi there!
At first: I also believe that the person who wants to "profiteer" on hard work of the developers doesn't do anything illegal, and that he is just targeted on stupid people which will give him money instead of using their own brain and installing the software by their own, free of charge. If this person doesn't change the firmware, especially the Credits list (i.e. doesn't remove anybody of the listed people and doesn't include himself there), he is just doing a "business service" and if he catches the customers, I would say that he is profiteering from the customer's stupidity, not from our software.
At second: I also don't understand why to stop publishing the sources: I believe that this person is not compiling his own versions (please correct me if I'm wrong) and that he just downloads the binary release. Other thing would be if he modifies the source against the copyright laws (i.e. removes the Credit list or does something similar) and sell it as his own work. But if he just sells it as the "Installation service" and states that the software is not his product, removing the sources will not discourage him with continuing of his business, as he is probably using just the binaries.
At third: This service has thousands analogiess in the HW business. An example:
If a rubber belt breaks in your vintage tape recorder, you can either buy a new one for $5 and replace the old one by yourself, or you can buy a repair which will do exactly the same, but for $50. And it's OK. If you don't feel comfortable with changing it yourself - you can break your gear if you'r not experienced with repairs - buy a repair. Similarly, someone may feel uncomfortable with upgrading the radio - if he's not experienced, he can brick it - so he can chooose a "professional" service giving him warranty that the radio will work.
Thank you for reading.
With regards & 73,
OK1PT / Pavel.

@ok1pt

I have spoken to the all the active developers and they are very unhappy about this.
I know Kai would not be happy either, as he specifically stated in the license that this is non-commercial.

So it doesn't really matter about the legality or otherwise.

If this persists, I the developers have told me they will stop working on the project and there will not even be any public updates, even of the sgl files.

You are free of course to continue working on the existing source code that has been released, and publish your own version.

VK3KYY wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:26 am

@ok1pt

I have spoken to the all the active developers and they are very unhappy about this.
I know Kai would not be happy either, as he specifically stated in the license that this is non-commercial.

So it doesn't really matter about the legality or otherwise.

If this persists, I the developers have told me they will stop working on the project and there will not even be any public updates, even of the sgl files.

You are free of course to continue working on the existing source code that has been released, and publish your own version.

Hi Roger,
I understand your point.
Did you contact the person and ask him to cease his "business" ? Do you have any answer from him ?
Regards, Pavel

ok1pt wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:45 am

Hi Roger,
I understand your point.
Did you contact the person and ask him to cease his "business" ? Do you have any answer from him ?
Regards, Pavel

I did not try to contact him, because he had already removed the eBay listing, but someone told me now that he just says in his description that he can install the firmware for an extra charge

I hoped the problem would stop naturally, because I don't have the time to contact everyone who does something wrong with the firmware etc

I know perhaps some people can say he is just doing a service, but it is not in the spirit of amateur radio etc

And the installation is now incredibly easy, because of the changes Daniel and I made to the CPS, hence I would be very surprised if there is anyone with a Ham license who can't install this, or who is not a member of a club etc where someone can help them to install it.

Throwing in the towel, or making "open" GD77 closed is a really, really poor way to handle this for everyone. It abandons the userbase and throws away all of the hard work done by the developers.

Anything that is open will be used by someone else. License forbidding it or not.

I deeply hope that this is reconsidered.

Report them to ebay for digitally delivered goods.

Listing Practices
Other listing practices policy violations
Digitally delivered goods

They are offering the firmware as a download.

If what it sells is firmware, it is violating the GPL. If what it sells is the work of installing the firmware on the device, I consider it legal.

Now, I should explain correctly what you are doing.

I have installed, for free, the firmware on many devices, and I consider that I do not have to charge for this work as I do it to help some amateur radio colleagues.

That’s not to say it’s not an easy job. Either they have to send me the radio and return it or they have to give me access to their PC and do the installation remotely. In both cases there is a time you have devoted to this task. In addition to shipping costs, if applicable.

One thing is to sell the firmware, and another is to sell the service to install it.

This seller reports that he can install the opengd77 firmware for an additional £ 20.

https://www.ebay.es/itm/BaoFeng-DM-1801 ... 3158745180

or only 10...

https://www.ebay.es/itm/Radioddity-GD77 ... 3114511822

I find the ebay listings disappointing... Personally, I would never consider exploiting your work on OpenGD77 for commercial purposes. It is amateur radio we're talking about.

Open technology can exist in a commercial sense too. I helped introduce open source software to a very large computer firm that I worked for back in 2000.

In effect we took a $45 million investment in software tools and made the decision to give it away (becoming the Eclipse Foundation).

Our position was that software tools should be free, and that the value was embodied in what you did with it.

About 300 commercial companies took the core of Eclipse, extended it and created individual business models on the core extendable framework. Some extended it into their specialized areas (modeling; embedded computing; etc...). Some started offering services build upon and around Eclipse. Some released libraries to support their extended product lines.

In effect, together we created an ecosystem based on the open technology. Everyone that collaborated benefitted from this, and continues to do so.

Our assumption (in this commercial environment) was that others would make money on what we gave away, but that we would all benefit from a number of things including interoperability and the huge number of students that subsequently learned to develop software using the platform.

Our GD77 community and ecosystem has a very high value. The GPL should effectively prevent others from selling what developers have put into the open. Unfortunately, enforcing that costs money, and there is not much of that available for that purpose.

The question is, do the developers support others offering services that involve using, configuring or installing their software? What about educational services and seminars? Developer contributions are their own, and under their control, and based on their good will. Commercializing of something release for non-commercial use is exploitation.

Before disengaging from work on something so useful, please consider the value of what you've done versus the cost of it's misuse by a minority of those exploiting it.