I noticed earlier today that William Davidson was promoting UAV Solutions as a place to purchase telemetry radios. Just as Tridge called out Paul Whitespy from Ready to Fly Quads http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/an-open-letter-to-paul-from-witespy as a license violator I want to make people aware that UAV Solutions is one of the most prolific violators of the open source licenses we use in Ardupilot, Pixhawk, and PX4.
UAV Solutions violates the GPL License on Mission Planner and Ardupilot and they removed Michael Oborne's name from Mission Planner and rebranded it as their own software.
I have spoken with UAV Solutions many times and they have no interest in respecting Michael's work or the efforts of the dev team. They have no interest in respecting the licenses and there is no reason for them to change the way they do business because people buy from them and keep them in business.
Please support the companies who support this project and who respect the developers and the people who have made this project possible. UAV Solutions is not one of those companies.
One of the dev team had a suggestion of creating a badge for open source violators. Mr Davidson you are the first person to be awarded the badge.
Comments
Had the execution (badge)...when does the trial start?
It appears the Kangaroo court is already in session.
I love this bit ...
Comment by William Davidson 14 hours ago
"[...] We do use the opens source code as many here do and make modifications as needed for ourselves or our customers. To that end we then provide the software free of charge to our customers with no NRE for the service. [...]"
Oh Please give us a ballpark figure for the per customer NRE cost for changing the logo :)
regards
Andy
Rob, understandable. Sounds like there's been a long history behind the scenes here. However, when someone looks back to see why William was given the violator badge and finds this thread, they'll only be able to conclude he was punished because "Mr. Elder said so". I still feel the whole case should be laid out publicly and William get a chance to defend himself publicly, even in this case.
@Craif,
I fully understand you but please read the above
"Dronecode provides a forum to .... "
"
"
Credits
Pixhawk hardware and PX4 software is maintained by an open source volunteer development community (Contact and Credits) and its infrastructure is supported by the Computer Vision and Geometry Lab. We are one of the autopilot projects supported by
the Linux Foundation DroneCode effort."
"
Pixhawk Hardware
All software solutions run on the Pixhawk autopilot, designed by the open hardware development team in collaboration with 3D Robotics."
All you need is to collaborate with PX4 core developers from Switzerland.
Otherwise the project may collapse, destroying PX4 software, Pixhawk hardware
since developers can loose interest in providing support.
You should mediate any conflict of interests in private not to make ppl lost.
Alas Kindle, generally I agree with what you're saying. It probably would be better to take a progressive approach.
But, I will point that, Craig has taken a progressive approach with them. It's just that the progressive part was done in private. This is why it appears like the first round is using the nuclear option. There was an attempt at diplomacy, however.
But you're right, it probably makes more sense to be a bit softer when we go public.
@Darius
Dronecode is a Linux Foundation Collaborative project (the address you give is the LF building in San Francisco)
And the PX4 project is one of the flight code options within Dronecode
https://www.dronecode.org/dronecode-software-platform
I know I'm new to posting here and I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but this community is important to me and I feel like an injustice is being served out in this thread. May I propose an alternative procedure for labeling a diydrones user as a license violator? Three steps:
1. Write a post bringing attention to the actions of a possible violator prior to changing their avatar image. Point out specific, verifiable evidence of their alleged violations.
2. Give the accused violator a reasonable amount of time to defend their actions and respond to the post.
3. If after that exchange has taken place and the user has not been able to adequately defend themselves, then slap them with a violator badge.
Reading through this comment thread does not give me an overwhelming feeling of consensus that William's actions are unequivocally in the wrong. And it seems like William is trying to defend himself as well. But there is obviously a guilty-until-proven-innocent mob mentality going on here that I don't think is the right way to handle this situation.
@Craig,
this is exactly how Internet works.
You are PX4 partner with one web link and lost PX4 partner with another web link
https://pixhawk.org/credits
"
Contact and Credits
If you want to contact us, please write to the mailing list (preferred) at the PX4 Users Forum or to the project maintainer Lorenz Meier from the Computer Vision and Geometry Lab, lorenz@px4.io. If you have specific questions you can contact the people listed below directly."
"
Project Partners
Our infrastructure is supported by the Computer Vision and Geometry Lab. We are one of the autopilot projects supported by the Linux Foundation DroneCode effort.
"
"
Credits
Software
PX4 Flight Stack – PX4 Firmware Contributors
PX4 Middleware – PX4 Firmware Contributors
NuttX Operating System – Gregory Nutt
Hardware
px4dev, Lorenz Meier, Philip Rowse, Laurens Mackay, Dominik Honegger, Julian Oes, Sam Kelly, Jeff Wurzbach, Craig Elder
Documentation
Wiki: kroimon
3D renderings and manuals – Lorenz Meier, Dominik Honegger and EagleUp."
"
Comment by Craig Elder 1 hour ago
@Darius, I think you need the new link http://px4.io/about-us/partners/
"
@Tom,
"
@Darius There are many open-source licenses. Which ones are you referring to that you deal with on Android?"
I mean the type of open-source license when Android app is promoted on the Internet
and its developer provides no access to source-code (common case nowadays).
@Craig,
from
https://www.dronecode.org/about/bylaws-and-policies/bylaws
so what is a role of PX4 Autopilot Core Dev Team from the Switzerland, Zurich University,
in Dronecode Corporation ?
"
BY-LAWS OF
DRONECODE PROJECT, INC.
ARTICLE I
NAME, PURPOSE AND OFFICES
Section 1.1 Name
The name of the corporation is “Dronecode Project, Inc.” and the corporation is referred to in these By-laws as the “Project”.
Section 1.2 Principal Office
The principal office of the Project shall be located at 660 York Street, San Francisco, CA 94110. The Board of Directors of the Project (each, a “Director,” and collectively, the “Board”) is hereby granted full power and authority to change the Project principal office from one location to another both within and without said state."
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 13 Next