Recent versions of firmware will be removed

[VK3KYY]

Last chance to download the last released version.

I have removed all previous releases so they will not be downloadable via the CPS or any other means.

I have left the last release to give people a bit more time to download the last release before I must delete it

[do1jml]

Roger, first a big thank you from me and the hundreds of people using this firmware.

I am not entirely sure what the problem with the licence is, but I am confident it can be fixed. The various open source licensed were drafted to protect developments like this one and not the other way around. Can we talk about it, if necessary privately, so that a solution is found?

For example: you posted that part of the firmware is closed source, as it originates from the manufacturer. I don't see this as a problem as whatever licence you chose only apply to the part you drafted and for these parts you publish the source code. The licence you chose does not apply to the parts not drafted by you, they are copyrighted by someone else (Tytera, I think?).

[YT5HOK]

Is this really the main reason? I guess the main reason is that the source code (tar.gz, zip) is not representing compiled binaries while GPL requires this.
You treat the Github just like a hosting service and that's not the open source spirit.

Just stop it. Don't search for quarrel, or try to make one. When you invest years in development of such a useful software, you do what you want. Now it is not your decision to make, so don't try to argue, go make a sandwich with your username.

[YT5HOK]

Last chance to download the last released version.

I have removed all previous releases so they will not be downloadable via the CPS or any other means.

I have left the last release to give people a bit more time to download the last release before I must delete it

Thanks Roger, I'm good. I have (probably) everthing you have ever made, excluding source code, as I'm out of programing for years.

As you know, I was around from the beginning, just as a beta tester, but if you still need me for further private testing - you have my email.

Thank you for everything you have done for amateur radio community.

[oh1fss]

For example: you posted that part of the firmware is closed source, as it originates from the manufacturer. I don't see this as a problem as whatever licence you chose only apply to the part you drafted and for these parts you publish the source code. The licence you chose does not apply to the parts not drafted by you, they are copyrighted by someone else (Tytera, I think?).

I agree. The parts of the original firmware are used like an external library via wrappers.

http://opengd77.com/viewtopic.php?f=16& ... 911#p13911

[VK3KYY]

For example: you posted that part of the firmware is closed source, as it originates from the manufacturer. I don't see this as a problem as whatever licence you chose only apply to the part you drafted and for these parts you publish the source code. The licence you chose does not apply to the parts not drafted by you, they are copyrighted by someone else (Tytera, I think?).

I agree. The parts of the original firmware are used like an external library via wrappers.

http://opengd77.com/viewtopic.php?f=16& ... 911#p13911

The official firmware sections are not just closed source they are hacked from a protected encrypted binary file.
If the manufacturer was not chinese, and not benefiting from extra sales of their hardware, this project would have been slapped with a shutdown order a long time ago.

I can't see any open source license that allows the unauthorised use of a encrypted binary without the owners permission.

And forget about asking Radioddity for permission, they don't own the source code, neither do TYT. The firmware appears to be written by a separate / unknown chinese company who also writes the firmware for the DM-1801 and RD-5R.
Radioddity won't tell me who this company are, its likely to be a branch of the Chinese state apparatus.



BTW.

The MD380 tools sidestepped the problem by writing a program which the user must run, to download and patch the latest official firmware, then upload to the radio

But every time the manufactuerer changes the firmware download, their latest firmware needs to be reverse engineered to find the location of all the necessary functions and memory blocks, which is a huge amount of work
The firmware source code e.g. linker and variables, then need to be changed to match the latest official firmware, and a new patcher program needs to be made etc

I am not wasting my time going down this path, as its a supportability nightmare, and is probably why the MD380 tools project is no longer supported.

[g0hww]

Just for clarification, does this mean that the CPS will no longer be able to download and install new releases of the firmware from this moment onwards? Does it mean that there will be no new versions of the firmware? I'm not quite sure I understand how this is playing out.

[oh1fss]

But every time the manufactuerer changes the firmware download, their latest firmware needs to be reverse engineered to find the location of all the necessary functions and memory blocks, which is a huge amount of work

Or you could stick with one particular version of the official firmware. Or some versions, not necessary the latest, at least not yet. If the manufacturer really insists on this type of operation, the user could load one of the supported original firmware versions. Of course it makes the process awkward, but it is possible.

But you have the same problem anyway now with OpenGD77, don't you?

The best option would be to negotiate with Baofeng or Radioddity. Or TYT. Even if they have not written the official firmware, they have the negotiation power to make an agreement. IMHO such an agreement would benefit them, because not all radios have option to use OpenGD77, which is the best firmware there exists!

[EA3BIL]

So sad reading this today:

HamRadio day, April 18th.


Thank you all very, very, very much for your helping, patients and support during all this time.

I hope to see/listen you soon again.


Health and Radio to you all !!!

Rafa.
EA3BIL.

[KC7RBW]

Because of constant complaints, about the badly drafted software license on the project, I am being forced to remove all recent builds of the firmware from being downloaded.

Removing the builds doesn't fix your problem.
You already distributed the builds.
The remedy is to release the source code for the builds you already distributed.

However we have since learned that the software license on MMDVMHost is invalid.

That's not how licenses work. You don't get to throw it all away and call the whole thing invalid.

The license is clearly GPL-2.0, which is a valid license. The addition of a non-commercial field-of-use restriction is an invalid addition to the license, but the rest of the license remains valid.

And because there are many copyright holders, not just you, and not just you and some others, you are bound by that license as much as anyone else is.

I'll put it as simply as I can:
If you push the source code for the latest release to GitHub, you will have fulfilled your obligations under the license.
That push will include the history that will provide source code for every previous release.

After that, you can walk away if you want, but I hope you won't walk away.

Yes, it's still a problem that the firmware uses a binary blob owned by DVSI, but you're not likely to get in trouble for that because everyone who bought a GD-77 or similar radio already paid the license fee for the AMBE codec. DVSI could ask you to take down the firmware (have they? I hope not!) but there's no reason for them to do that because they already got paid when you bought your radio. And besides, DVSI is not the copyright holder who is complaining about your non-compliance with the terms of the license.

Future builds could continue, as I've already suggested, by leaving it to the end user to obtain and integrate the AMBE blob. Then it's not you or the project touching the AMBE blob.