Game of Clones...........


Just came across this Pixhawk clone, so thought I would share.

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.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • You two need to get your own show - or your own room!

  • how can I help?


  • Thanks for the info.... clone it is. Seeing what 3DR has achieved so far is down right amaizing. Maybe someday a Universal "Good Faith Patent" sticker placed on a product will take hold supported by the associated consumers related to it where the inventor/s announces it online as their invention and the patent attorneys and their "legal" fees required for enforcement are left out of the loop and not needed because people respect the GFP and understand a GOOD patent is an inventation to a lawsuit by anyone with more money than the inventor (as is the case 99.*% of the time) that wants to use the legal system in bad faith to steal it for profit where the reality of hiding it to support a lower tech's profits is too often more than just a rumor.

    Of course such an idea requires humans with an IQ creating enough self awareness to see the need and value of respecting an inventor's innovation where the inventor gains so he/she is able to move on to create even better ideas produced for all our benefit, not for some thief who's only talent is to copy what it sees to invent mistakes using someone else's knowledge, even when the person who understood it the best says it's wrong. I can't say we have seen this before because it's still happening. If we are ever going to benefit from the best technology available created by the best minds I see no other way than to take the attorneys and legal expenses out of the loop and respect the people in our environment we want in it because they are of benefit to our needs and desires. In the end it benefits the thief as well so its a win-win situation for everyone's enjoyment. It's a crazy idea maybe, but with the right time in the right place... anything is possible IMO. 

  •  It wasn't a question :)


    James Cotton: > The hardware is CC-BY-SA, not GPL so that is not relevant in this case: . There is no point quibbling details if you are being entirely wrong about which details to quibble over.


    James, Ardupilot is GPL. A closed "deny" binary distributed within the framework does not seem to be a detail. Now that it's been "opened", (and one might  wonder wether it would it would have been if it were not for the discussion here and elsewhere),  what it actually does still doesn't feel like a detail ... It seems lead developper Tridge over at Drone-discuss feels the same ...

  • Developer
    Monroe, the licence is for the people who use the hardware or clone it, not for those that designed the originals. PX4 and Pixhawk are original designs, by ETH, with an agreement, and assistance from 3DR.... The licence is for others, other than the original hardware designer.
    They can do what they want, but you are bound by the licence...

    However, for all the hot air here, everything HAS been published, this is a flight critical piece of hardware, if the manufacturer is confident that their hardware is good, they can setup their own COA and ask for it to be added, just like any other hardware supplier would if they had made a change to the hardware. At this point, you have NO reports of a clone hardware supplier attempting to submit a COA to any of the GCS's

    A real world example of this is the fact that a lot of these clones do not have the RTC fitted, which is flight critical for advanced flights on plane.

    However, if that clone is identified correctly, then any known issues could be listed... Same for 3DR boards...

    This is no different to making users press the safety button, if they don't like it, they could recompile their own branch without it.

    If they really don't like the direction of the project, they can branch and start supporting their own version.
  • The hardware is CC-BY-SA, not GPL so that is not relevant in this case: . There is no point quibbling details if you are being entirely wrong about which details to quibble over.

    @Rob: of course having people purchasing a beta design when they think they are getting good hardware is bad. The approach I pushed when at OpenPilot was release the design files once we sold hardware. Now OpenPilot doesn't release design files so they simply switched to closed hardware (probably to address the same profit issues 3DR is struggling with).

    There is nothing in the GPL or CC-BY-SA that implies you have to release your WIP designs. It's the same reason I haven't released the design files for Freedom since it isn't to the standard I would want for end users. However, Sparky I released the files for since I sold them. Since I'm the sole designer of those boards, I can in short do whatever I want. Any license I release them under applies to other people.

    The hardware designers can do whatever they want. They can make closed hardware. Or closed hardware and then choose to later open the hardware designs. Actually, as far as I understand they can even make a CC-BY-SA design and then choose to close derivatives if they do it. This is essentially giving themselves a license waiver to be closed.

    I'm pretty sure actually Pixhawk could, if all the people that contributed to the design under the CC-BY-SA license agreed, close the design for subsequent revisions. Of course, they could no longer call themselves "Open".  This is what OpenPilot did to go closed (minus the actually getting the permission from people who helped design Revo).

    You can read this for the creative common's take on this:

    However, people that use other's open designs (e.g. 3DR) cannot cherry-pick the license. They either design their own hardware or follow the license for the hardware they are using.

    TL;DR: people who actually create things have a lot of freedom. people that use that work have to follow the rules.

  • Failure to provide them is a breach of the GPL.

  • >I don't see anywhere in the GPL it says design updates have to be released IMMEDIATELY.

    If it's GPL, it has to be released when the first board is sold. Any customer with the board in hand has a right to them.

  • Somebody cloned the Pixhawk V2.3 board while it was still in beta testing.  They put it up for sale before 3DR had even gone into production, because 3DR was doing all the grunt work of validation.  Due diligence.  After the design flaw with 2.3 was found, that cloner continued to sell those boards.  They even changed the Ebay listing to show photos of a genuine 3DR V2.4 board, to obfuscate the true genesis of the boards.  But those board are *dangerous to fly*.

    @Rob, The RTFHawk is not a 2.3 board.  

  • Moderator

    btw if anyone notices their crunchylicous video clips transforming into cute puppies and kittens it's probably me just violating the moderator guidelines.

This reply was deleted.