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
The actual keys to what I am stating lay in
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
Definition of a User Product
and the following proviso:
"
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made."
and this proviso:
10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
while what has been attempted the COA/OTP is on its face perfectly legal by itself.
When used in combination with Michael Obornes code checked in under the terms
COPYING.txt this specifically interferes with the rights of downstream recipients and License
modifications specifically created to address this situation have not been checked into the source tree of either covered work. Such a license change would require either all the developer(s) permission or recode and replacement of code for developers who did not choose to consent to a license modification for this purpose. Another approach that many have suggested they are more comfortable with on drones-discus is warning of the absence of a COA and allowing the user his right of use of a "covered work" anyway which would have been perfectly legal. its the prevention of loading both "covered works" and "modified Object code" to a "user Device" of the users choice that is NOT allowed in the precise language of that file in the absence of license modifications to the contrary in both products.
I am quite well aware of MY rights before the law
are you?
HZL
Hi Bill,
again this is in specific reference to "covered works" and "installation information" and "authorization keys", its NOT about the rights of clone manufacturers and its most definitely NOT about open hardware.
It Is about the precise language in that flle and what rights it grants and/or doesnt grant...to GPL downstream users and developers seeking to license under the aegis of the FSF as I have quoted from ad nauseam above..
as to seeing an attorney about specific GPL rights that can be upheld or not upheld in a court of law I have many times since I helped license my first opensource contribution/product in 1987 and again in 1991 and many times since then as I worked for various OEMs and research organizations like SUNLABS specifically on GPL and other forms of open source licensing and products, I also specifically directed a project internal to SUNSOFT to seek out opensource/GPL/BSD authors in 1993-1994 and hire them either as employees or contractors to specifically support their open source work and porting same to solaris/sparc. YES I specifically worked with each one on GPL/MIT/Nautilus/Xwindows/BSD licensing issues with their individual as well as SunSofts Attorneys as well as their personal contracts with Suns Attorneys, I also provided the legal verbiage for the JAVA version 1 open source inspection license along with a host of SUN attorneys, is that enough layman qualifications for you?
no I DONT think I am confused in the slightest and in fact I am one of the few parties to this discussion who actually HAS been involved in and worked with attorneys on GPL involved cases and has invested my own hard earned money into those same attorneys on many occasions in the past.
again this is not about confusion pissing contests or any other spin its instead about the precise language of that file and what rights, obligations and language it allows developers licensing under it.
This is being lost in all the smoke and confusion surrounding cloners, paul of witespy and tridges impassioned rebuttal to same.
HZL
Mp1: I agree with you. I (or anyone else, for that matter) have no right “to demand him to change his code“. He wrote most or all or it, and has full control over it. Nor would I dream to "demand him". Tha’s that. And as you say, I or anyone can branch it, fork it, or do whatever.
Except, and that’s the crux, that I do have a right to ask that it adheres to the GPL license it’s released under, and respect the general community rules it has evolved in. And if it comes with a closed binary loader with no source blocking a specific board, I think it’s a problem. Tridge thinks it’s a problem, just about any open source person would think it’s a problem, and I doubt M.O. doesn’t think it’s a problem, unless he has a real and personal beef with RTFHawk, in which case I would acknowledge his opinion yet respectfully disagree.
I think MP is a fabulous piece of software, I’ve said so elsewhere, and have much respect for its author and the developpers in general for Ardupilot. Likewise 3DR in their role of sponsors and stewards.( I’d better at least have some, as I am a developper myself, in another field). A nd I am a “heavy” user on top of that. That does not mean that anything can or should be blindly supported. As has been said elsewere on this forum, there’s a big difference between not supporting a clone, and actively blocking it by *actively* working on a piece of code to do that. *That* is what I think is not right.
As to ownership, I stand by my comment (blanket statement?) that it is not 3DR’s. If you disagree, you may want to read Tridge’s post on the matter, or general FOSS writtings.
Btw, I have no affiliation with Paul or any drone vendor or RTFHawk, don’t even own one, but may in the future, although VRBrain is first on my list.
Cheers ...
HZL. I think you need some advice from a lawyer, you seem to be very confused about what Open Source licenses allow. see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html for more information. I recommend it to all who have not read it before.
For OSHW see http://www.oshwa.org/definition/
@mp1 Michael Oborne HAS licensed his code under the COPYING.txt file which binds him specifically as well as downstream users/contributors , he has used DRM routines to tortuously interfere with the "installation Instructions" proviso of another GPL V3 product
. As the COPYING.txt document specifically calls out "authorization keys" as part of the "installation instructions" ANY downstream user of both products COULD conceivably litigate this matter to their hearts content in a court.
Again its NOT about personalities its about using code licensed under the GPL to interfere with the rights of others granted under that same document. Michael Oborne by agreeing to be bound by the language in COPYING.txt gave up that specific ability of blocking usage of ANY covered work and under the terms in that file has 3 choices to bring his codebase into compliance with GPL V3.
1. remove the infringing DRM routines that causes the GPL V3 rights of downstream users to be infringed when attempting to use another "covered work"
2. change the license of the code ie change COPYING.TXT and DONT call it GPL(FSF WILL Object!)
3.provide "authorization keys, if such can not be provided then see 1 or 2.
This never has been about a pissing contest.. its ALWAYS been about legal contract terms and GPL V3 "Installation Information" for some of us.
That is what has EVERYONE up in arms and NO one developer from the APM side of things CAN make it OK to infringe ALL DOWNSTREAM users of a "covered work" as no one developer owns all the code and such tricks done in the fashion they were definitely fall afoul of the "installation instructions" proviso of GPL V3.
HZL
@john
First of all Michael wrote about 95% perhaps more of Mission Planner. You can see this by looking at the commits or even just examining the style of the code. You like to make blanket statements, but the problem is when you say community you really should be saying Michael Oborne. Its his code, he does the hard work day in and day out. You have no right to demand him to change his code to suit you. You can ask or you can fork his code and change it yourself.
Of course if what you say is true, then the community can change whatever feature they like, theres nothing stopping them, the source is open and freely available.
Oh my god, just discovering this insane post! So in the end who pissed the furthest?
30 pages of pissing contest, times an average of ten posts per page, times god knows how many minutes of writing plus hours of reading,...that makes a lot of lost brain power that would be much more useful elsewhere.
I hope this community is not slowly sinking into these kinds of sterile posts that are becoming more frequent, unfortunately. In just a year's time the diydrones.com ambiance has degraded, I feel. Sad.
I think the best that can be said of THIS particular case is that its an edge case for GPV V3, where the usage of DRM routines in one GPL V3 covered work are being used to interfere with the GPL V3 granted user rights to use another GPL V3 covered work on hardware of the users choice which does on the face of the language used fall afoul of the installation instructions proviso.
Thats about a succinct statement as I can get for the actual description. And again for me this is NOT about personalities, companys or anyones elses attempted spin or reading of GPL V3 its based on the exact language of COPYING.txt in both source trees and how a litigator might interpret same(IANAL).
again I see this as NOT a technical issue but an ethical one concerning GPL V3 user rights concerning usage of covered work including my own usage.
I am NOT a clone manufacturer not do I front for one nor do I work for any of the parties involved, I am an end-user , researcher and developer and a customer of 3DR so again both in real life and in court I have standing.
hotel zulu lima
Mp1: So what if 3dr "told" Michael to add the check. Its their code, one half gives free stuff to help the other half code and test. Its a symbiotic relationship.
It is not "their code", and there lies the crux of the issue.. It is open source code that was originally develloped by a volunteer community under GPL, when 3DR did not even exist. The fact that there is now some developpers that are contractors or employees of 3DR does not change this fact, nor somehow switches ardupilot's ownership to 3DR.
@Paul, I have a solution for you. Sent you a message through RCG.
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
of 29 Next