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
Hi Guy,
I use osx/linux/windows myself and I reluctantly installed windows 8.1 and VS2012 to do the necessary mods,
I have not even ordered clone pixhawk hardware yet..(but I will as a result of this).
As to the gui going closed? Mission Planner is licensed GPL V3.. while David Oborne can take future versions of his individual contributions closed source the source at present is open and all code produced until now will remain under the GPL no going back on that(its why as a developer I trust the GPL model).
As far as the hardware going closed? hmm plenty of STM32 compatible flight controllers coming online and again the Linux/APM move is gathering momentum so I expect several versions of APM compatible hardware being produced without this COA/OTP nonsense.
and again given the lifetime of companies in this space I DONT trust single source hardware and will always choose what is also available as a clone .
hotel zulu lima
@jamescotton what you linked to has no binding legally.. the only thing of note legally is the exact language of the version of GPL V3 contained within the file COPYING.txt in the Ardupilot source tree and the exact language contained within the file COPYING.txt in the mission planner source tree. This is what the respective source trees are legally licensed under.. not some comments by some developer on a website or even the master copy of the GPL at gnu.org. the 2 files I called out above are the proper legal GPL licensing for the respective source trees.
hotel zulu lima
ps and again I have already done technical circumvention of the offending routines. Its the attempt by one GPL V3 covered work(Mission Planner) to tortuously interfere with the GPL V3 user rights of another distinct and covered GPL V3 work(APM)that is NOT OK under the language of those files under the installation information proviso.
hotel zulu lima
@jamescotton.. the DRM in Mission Planner is interfering with my rights to load APM(A separate and distinct GPL licensed covered work) into a clone pixhawk via lack of an authorization key. which also is specifically called out. the language is QUITE clear, and its quite clear that you are NOT an attorney and IANAL on this end so it will remain unsolved till someone starts litigation(and with the number of out of control drones of all brands I suspect that wont take long)
Hotel Zulu Lima
> DRM is distasteful but I believe not contradictory with GPLv3. I'd love to see any articles or parts of the license > that say otherwise though.
Distateful it is, and most importantly in my opinion (regardless of wether it may turn out to be legally ok), it contradicts just about any previous statements made by Chris Anderson regarding open source software or hardware and how clones are not only ok but actually encouraged. DroneTrends made a compelling case for this.
I don't understand how someone as brilliant and pivotal in his contribution to Pixhawk as Lorenz Meier, or Andrew Tridgewell for that matter, could tacitely accept DRM. And how an un-announced, undocumented open source Mission planner release suddenly included a *binary* loader with no source denying RTF-Hawk. And that someone critical like DroneTrend, who forked MissionPlanner and released a working non DRM version, would see *all* his posts in this forum suddently wiped out. (I can understand that some may have been deemed over the top when not technical, but certainly not all of them were, far from it).
Something's just not right, and it *is* a big deal, in this somewhat unpredecented arrangement where a commercial company is taking over and starting to fully control an open-source project and a community based forum. If this forum and its moderators are under some sort of iron 3DR fist, or the moderator himself here is anti clones or against anyone critical of 3DR, this should be known.
DIYdrones owner Chris A. has a right to control whatever he wants. But if 3DR critical posts are going to be controlled, this should be known. And don't call this site a community-based, free exchange, open-source sharing forum. Or announce that a Phantom clone running APM is cool, when you would have fought every which way if it was running APM on a Pixhawk clone (soon to come, I am sure).
A guess: 3DR model is not financially working right now. Anti-competitive moves are therefore required by the bottom line and VCs. Sell slick and fully RTF products like DJI, expand sales to the higher end commercial businesses, or perish. Iris is very far from cutting it right now, it does not even start to compare with Falcons or other business targeted competitors. Despite the close to free (to 3DR) and stellar open source Ardupilot.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm just going off what I can find.
Regarding the first section "When you convey a covered work", if you read that article I linked, they discuss the it was to negate things like the DMCA if you hack the protection. It doesn't make it illegal to implement the DRM itself. Basically it is saying even though you coded something that looked like DRM, oops you didn't mean it so feel free to work around it. The GNU statement says this in their FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DRMProhibited
Everything I've read says Section 6 (the second paragraph you link) covers the opposite case. Specifically you cannot distribute something running GPLv3 software that breaks when you try and modify the software. Again discussed in the FAQ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Tivoization . In the current situation, if you have a board that 3DR distributed you can modify the code they link to and it will run without issue, which is consistent with Section 6.
I still don't consider DRM in FOSS software cool, but it doesn't seem like the sections of the GPLv3 you pointed out are relevant here.
BTW as this is business/work for me I take issues like GPL V3 compliance EXTREMELY seriously...
Hotel Zulu Lima
Sounds like someone is upset that someone is smart and competing. Don't like it? Don't make it open-source. It's because of vendors like Witespy that I can even afford to enter the hobby.
The subject of that section is "Corresponding Source", and states that the source code must not require a key (thus defeating the purpose of distributing the source).
In this document https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html read the section "Neutralizing Laws That Prohibit Free Software — But Not Forbidding DRM". This article also implies the GPLv3 being incompatible with DRM was in early drafts but not the final version.
DRM is distasteful but I believe not contradictory with GPLv3. I'd love to see any articles or parts of the license that say otherwise though.
What happened to Drone Trends postsings.
I understand that Monroe decided to take out his postings voluntarily. But Drone Trends?
Was he censored?
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 29 Next