Just came across this Pixhawk clone, so thought I would share.
http://witespyquad.gostorego.com/flight-controllers/rtfhawk-2-4.html
Ready to Fly Quads is a reputable distributor, and I have made a few purchases from them already. They already have a clone of the APM2.x, that has been somewhat successful. Will this new clone be just as good. for under $100USD, might be work a try.
Comments
Kip, asking people to contribute back is not a breach of the license. Requiring people to contribute back would be. But nobody is making this a requirement. You can freely take the source code, do what you want with it (such as stripping out the OTP check) and redistribute it. Notice that nobody has sent you any lawyer's letter for what you've done.
Well, it probably was the OTP crap comment that set me off, and I got confused by all the people commenting. So, other than the OTP crap comment, you're right I can't find much you have said. Sorry about that, I'm human and get emotional too.
Absolutely not. As long as the arguments are founded in logic and fact, I'm happy to learn from other people proving I'm wrong.
Ok, good on you. So just as the previous thing, the comment may not apply to you, but others. And actually it was a question not a comment.
I also would not accept waking up one morning and finding this closed source, with a jacked up price and no benefit to me for my work. I would also quit immediately if that happened. I see no risk of that happening. I don't think this is where it's headed. This is something else, which I do agree with.
To the contrary in fact, I see people like Wytespy, RCTimer, etc. as being the ones are benefit from my work (and that of others obviously) without contributing back to me. RCTimer, Wytespy, UAVProducts, Hobby King or whoever, all make a profit on these things. They wouldn't be in business otherwise. But there's not a single benefit that flows back to me.
In fact, I've SUNK a whole lot of money into Hobby King, buying helicopters, which I crash while developing the code. And now they are selling boards which profit from that the fact that I spent money on their helicopters! That offends my moral sensibilities. That's why I react this way.
Because they are just making clones of 3DR's boards. It's really simple. The definition of a clone is something that is an exact copy of something else.
Nobody has ever called Roberto Navoni's boards clones. He makes functional differences. Something that would make somebody choose his board over 3DR's for reasons other than just price.
I also just noticed this while searching your posts on RCG:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2149124#post28123114
That is not a clone. You even called it a clone yourself! But I disagree. That is not a clone. They put effort into rearranging it into a different functional configuration. I'd actually like to have a look at one of those myself! If that little daughterboard is the IMU, and it's well suspended for vibration damping, that's epic. And then all built into a nice aluminum case with convenient connector locations... I've been wanting a board like that for a long time. I think the Pixhack is a really poor choice of name. It might be more fitting to call it the AwesomeHawk. :)
I see that you think $180 is too much. That tells me that you don't value the work that went into creating that design. That's why we're having this disagreement. That is a totally fair price for what they've done there.
Now, the license requirement is that CUAV needs release the design files of that board. That then allows somebody else (hopefully 3DR) to have a look at it, see what works, what doesn't work, maybe make some more functional improvements, and release something else even better.
That is how this ecosystem is supposed to work. It doesn't work when all we have is some companies doing nothing but making carbon copies of somebody else's work, with the only difference being that they are selling it cheaper because they haven't put any effort into it. Those guys will kill off the guys actually developing stuff, and then this whole thing dies.
and first 32 bit port was made by a so called "cloner" , thanks to Virtual Robotix for that.
Has 3DR contributed back to him ?
& what I think is this is clearly not the way to go.
3DR consequencies:
- bad reputation on open sauce communities
- futile debates ( with people trying to make other people says things they haven't, I count you on this according to what you calim about me... ;) )
- bad brand perception by consumers reading all the flaming on forums
- forked GCS so no way of having stats on your side anymore on legit vs "clones"
- splitted community ( look at OpenPilot, they lost most of their best devs, and projects is slower than before if not almost dead )
- could prevent new devs coming on board because of this bad background.
- Cloners will mutualise their work together and will be stronger than if you let things going
@ Rob, your poses is nonsense.
You can't say "its open source" and in the next paragraph say that 3DR has some sort of intellectual property claim on this or that.
Anyone can produce a board from open plans, load the open code and read the documentation published openly. They key is to give credit where credit is due....which Paul is doing. It would be worse for Paul claim the board is his original design, to copy all the how to content, strike any mention of 3DR and host it himself.
3DR's business model relies on open source. They need the world wide network of developers to maintain and add features to the code. There are risks with this model. Being undercut on pricing is one of them. If they don't like this they can change their business model.
Well sure they benefit and profit. That's the point I was making. We *know* that. We actually want them to profit, because if they don't, the whole project dies. It's just that simple.
I'm aware of only one developer who is quiting because of this issue. I'll miss him. But it's his free choice. He freely gave of his code to an open source project. He wants it to be gratis, not just libre. His work is still gratis, and libre, because the source code is available to all. But he disagrees with the direction the project has taken, and that's fine.
Maybe there are others who haven't spoken up, I don't know. Maybe others won't contribute in the future. That's un-knowable. But obviously the group that makes the decisions (and I'm not one of them, I'm just along for the ride) have determined that on balance, this is the best way to go. Figuring out how to make this project work is not easy.
Monroe: They can! And they already have. That is exactly the reason why these legal arguments that this somehow breaks the GNU license will fail. I would think that 3DR could even begin to charge for downloaded compiled binaries that 99% of the users are using (including clone users who download it from 3DR's services) if they wanted to, and that would be totally legal. As long as the source code is open and available to all, to fork or do with as they please, that should be totally legal.
Rob I was refering to that:
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me? (#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee)
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
Cause I feel you guys asks to people who make their own boards to contribute back. I totally get the morality of this, unfortunatly that's how GPL works.
But you know more flexible you are,, more dev will contribute back in a natural way No need to force things, or you'll loose the point.
This makes me feel to OpenPilot situation few years ago, before the Taulabs split.
Can you quote me please ? I'd like to know what you're refering to about saying I've insulted people ? Something I never do.
I'm used to have a rude language on most things i say on forums, not related to APM. If you refer of me saying "OTP crap" and things like that, it's just common language to me, and part of my fun.
Or perhaps you take as insult all peoples who disagree with you ? I prefer to not believe that, you're a big guy.
I contribute to Baseflight, Taulabs, have some other open source projects too. I want to join the 32 bit APM adventure to but I'm a bit of afraid by seeing what's happened those last weeks of developping stuffs and wake up one day with a closed project.
Why do you call all peoples who make their own board "Cloners" ? Eagle files where published for that purpose.
Of course there will be some people producing it for commercial stuff, but you can't punish all devs & peoples populating their own boards for that. Or close the project then.
.
But by writing your big paste of argue, you could at least try to answer at least to one of my questions. Woul be more prouctive.
Rob - you might be able to make a moral case if 3DR itself had not just contributed to, but also heavily benefited from the open source nature of the platforms involved. People not paid by 3DR contribute to their code - and in doing so improve the products, and thus improve 3DR's profitability. Just like makers of 'clone' hardware, 3DR profit from open source also.
You either subscribe to the legal framework of open source, or you don't. 3DR appear to currently be trying to put a boot in both camps and therein lies the tension we see in threads like this.
What is the relevance of this? Nobody is selling the software for money. And then even if they were, it's completely legal.
@Kipkool, similarly, I've seen some of the rude and insulting things you're written at RCG about the people who produce the software. For 3+ years, 3DR has been a partner in this project with us. For all that time, 3DR has been working hand-in-hand with developers around the world, who are interested in producing a full-featured autopilot that is accessible to all. For all that time, the price of the hardware has remained extremely reasonable.
I guess some people have different perceptions of what is reasonable and what is not. Some people seem to think that for some reason, the world owes them a free autopilot. Or one that is produced for little more than BOM cost. Unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way. It's been tried, and it does not work. Without naming names, there are a couple of other open source autopilot systems available. And if you're wondering "Who?" well that just reinforces my point. They've gone absolutely nowhere.
Why don't these cloners produce hardware to work with those other projects? Because nobody is using them. Why is nobody using them? Because they don't work to an acceptable standard. And why is that? Because they haven't attracted productive developers. And they haven't attracted productive developers, because nobody is using them, and who wants to put time and effort into something that nobody is benefiting from.
Ardupilot is the classic case of "an overnight success, 5 years in the making". And 3DR has been a partner in that for those 5(ish) years. Every developer on the project understands that the only reason this project is where it is, is because there is a successful business running along-side us. We know that this does not work in an environment of pure, altruistic, hopey-changey do-goodery. It has to be backed by a strong business. And figuring out how to make a business model work in this difficult environment is not easy. But 3DR has done it. Yes, they make profit. But we think that producing an autopilot accessible to all, for about $200 is pretty darn good.
We're pretty happy that we have something that delivers performance similar or better than anything else on the market, at almost any price, used by 10,000+ people including hobbyists, students, non-profit environmental groups, emergency responders. It's why we do this. We're OK with 3DR making some money on this, because they are our partner, and we know this entire ecosystem wouldn't exist without them.
So maybe you can understand why this "us versus them" schism has evolved.
So somebody goes and sticks a few screen doors in the code. And you have to actually take the time to fork the code and strip that out, and maintain it yourself. 99.99% of the work has already been done for you, but all of the sudden you have to do some of the work yourself, and it's suddenly such a terrible thing? The very fact that it was so easy for you to strip that out, demonstrates that this is open source.
Several people have suggested that this COA thing is a breech of the open source license. I can only respond by quoting Richard Stallman.
For all the people expressing righteous indignation about this whole COA thing, I have to ask: How much time have YOU put into developing open source software?
-
20
-
21
-
22
-
23
-
24
of 29 Next