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
Chris, you did indeed admit the badge was applied too hastily. So did Rob. Yet, you both have been complacent in having it persist on William Davidson's avatar all this time.
I'm not on UAVS's side in this. Both Pbreed and Andy Little make good counter arguments, as well as others on both sides in this discussion. I personally believe a company that takes advantage of open source code should give back to the community freely and without hesitation. But my point is that this isn't about whether UAVS is guilty or not. It's the fact they were slapped with the badge first and then stood trial after.
For William to defend himself now, he must do so with the open source violator badge publicly displayed on every post he writes! Think how absurd that is. In order to make his case that he is not a violator, he must reproduce his violator's badge on the front page feed of the diydrones website with each and every post.
That is wrong on its face. If you agree, as you say you do, that UAVS should be allowed to have their side put forward, then advocate for it to be done fairly and properly. The badge needs to be removed. It can be put back later by those on charge, but it should not be there now.
Hi @Alas,
Yes you quoted me correctly in:
'And Chris, you wrote "There are also claims that the binary recipients are not receiving the source code as required." Is an unverified, 3rd-hand account enough for you to accuse someone of violating the license? Do you have verifiable evidence? And to use the claim that Craig Elder would not "level that allegation without being 100% certain" as proof that UAVS is guilty is such a logical fallacy that I'm utterly stunned.'
You however missed my earlier post which said that maybe the OS violators badge was a bit hasty too. Funny how that wasnt quoted.
Now think this through, all that needs to happen for a copy of the source needing to be handed over is for one of UAV Solutions clients to give a binary copy to any person and that person is then entitled to a copy of the source code. That is the intent of the GPL, have a read of it. As soon as you release a binary copy you are bound to provide the source code, hence my words of any 'binary recipient' it doesnt need to be a 'customer' of theirs..... That is why I back what @Craig has said to date. Yes it is all of 3rd party info, only a very limited number of people have first hand knowledge or business documents that would meed the rules of evidence in a court of law, note we are not one and are not bound by it's limitations.
Notice the bar now is very low to be required to release the source code. If @Craig was given a copy of the binary from a customer then he is entitled to ask for the source code, see where this is now going. The ability to withhold the source is now very hard. It doesn't matter that their might be a commercial agreement to not forward it on to others (and may count as propagation which I believe is not allowed in the GPL - someone who is more knowledgeable would have to verify that one) but that is a different set of laws and has no bearing on the release of the source code. If you wish to not hand over the source code the safest thing to do is not release it to an outside party, keep it in house 100% as once you do the control is in their hands and not yours. It is the only way.
I'm all for UAV Solutions having their side put forward as they may have a different view and that is fair enough, they have a right to be heard on this forum. That is why I don't count this as a Witch Hunt. If we took that away and no one listened to them, then yes we'd have a witch hunt. We have an action that may have been a bit hasty but on the surface it doesn't appear so.
Chris
Comment by Pbreed 14 hours ago
"There is NO requirement in the GPL license to release the code to anyone but their customers."
@PBreed, Sorry that is not correct.
The Point of GPL software is that any user (aka "program's users") of The Software can access the source code of any author, *if their copy of the source code has been released*, for example a product using The Software is sold to a customer. If I make a modified copy of source then that copy must be made available to any user of the software on request. I believe the License itself covers what is a reasonable way to make the soure code available
Put simply. If you make modifications and release them to anybody, then I am allowed to see them without having to burgle your office. That is the whole point. You see now everyone can build on everyone else's work. You see how that might work :)
Of course if you, as a potential user dont like it, then you are free not to look at it, modify it, use it or sell it, in which case I wonder quite what you are doing here. :)
regards
Andy
@Alas +1.
You should not be accused, tried and executed by the same person. Innocent until proven guilty is what I grew up with in a Democracy...Maybe this is not a democracy though. Forgive me if I am mistaken.
The action taken by Craig Elder and subsequently endorsed by participants in this thread is getting more and more absurd. When this started, the mob was shouting with absolute certainty that William Davidson was violating the open source license. Eight pages of comments later, it sounds more like "well, maybe he's not technically violating the license, but definitely still don't like him."
Yet the open source violator badge persists on his avatar.
If there is any doubt whatsoever, how can the administrators of this website allow the badge to remain? Rob, you wrote in a comment earlier that you needed to take another look at the wording of the license after you read Pbreed's comment. You implied heavily that you were feeling some uncertainty. For some reason, you very quickly deleted that comment shortly after posting it.
And Chris, you wrote "There are also claims that the binary recipients are not receiving the source code as required." Is an unverified, 3rd-hand account enough for you to accuse someone of violating the license? Do you have verifiable evidence? And to use the claim that Craig Elder would not "level that allegation without being 100% certain" as proof that UAVS is guilty is such a logical fallacy that I'm utterly stunned.
No one likes a license violator, especially if that person is unjustly profiting against the will of those that did the work. We all agree on that. But we must be sure the license is actually being violated before punishment is pursued. And we must give a chance for the accused to defend themselves publicly. Neither of these conditions have been met. Engaging in what looks more and more like a personal vendetta against a specific business is an abuse of power by certain individuals.
I'm sorry, the badge needs to be removed. When there is certainty, put it back.
Hi @Darius,
Are those android apps GPL'd or some other license? It was asked before by @Chris Anderson and not answered by you.... When you say @Chris is it me or Chris Anderson you are referring too? There are numerous licenses used on the Google Android store. I suggest if they are violating the license they have then you have the right to call them on it. That doesn't give another person a free pass now does it....
A number of the apps specifically allow for reskinning and customization, as long as the license supports it then it is ok.
I'm all for UAV Solutions having a voice to respond, it is only fair. They have their version as does Craig. Where the truth is will come out in due time.
Chris
LOL! I actually assumed "it" was a spam bot.
@Darius, you really seems to be the Jack of all trades. You've posted into many of the top discussions claiming to be an expert of a number of fields ranging from GNSS to software licences. Please stop this nonsense.
The Chris posting in this thread is not Chris Anderson.
if I could be of any help to settle this case, please let me know.I am globalist by birth and mediate tens of small and big case from Global Warming, Climate Change with UNFCCC and other UN Agencies, Prof. Mann, Nobelist to Wind Farm Syndrome, Infrasounds induced Chronic Fatigue Syndrome to Microwaves Supersensitivity with WHO, European Commission, European Commission, to Water as GroundZero GHG.
@Rob, if lawyers at GNU, FSF say Yes in the FAQ, I am sure their intention was to say Yes not NO and to say Yes for 100%.
If you claim otherwise, please contact GNU and FSF directly.
BTW2
@Rob,
Business is done under NDA, any business today. Business by individuals is done under privacy protection.
I was lucky to join Peer To Patent Project by University of New York, to provide prior art to pending patent applications by IT global VIPs (project by University of New York, USPTO, UK Patent Office, IP Australia)
I steer discussion nowhere.
Life is for real and I get used to not getting access to source code in case of Android apps. And personally, I must respect a right of the developer to privacy, a right to protect his/her intellectual property,
since I manage Global Patent Office project and get legal opinions by patent lawyers representing every region on the globe
and since algorithms, source code can be patentable, I respect privacy of developers.
@Chris,
you are the boss and you set the rules at DIYDrones and at many more places.
I have global background so I represent flexibility.
Open Source, Free Software Branding is not a novelty since implemented earlier by manufacturers of smartphones, tablets ...
From my 5 Android tablets every opened with another Logo, brand name, ads, promoted apps on powering on.
Michael Oborne, developer of the Mission Planner is a key person to speak
and contact staff at UAV Solutions or other individuals or corporate bodies at his own discretion.
My professor from Columbia University developed "Peace Wars"
"Make peace not war"
HI @Pbreed and @Darius,
I asked for 3 things, do any of them seem unreasonable?
1 - Put credits back or consult the dev's on what is reasonable
2 - Ensure the source code is available to any binary recipient (or better yet put it on github so you can give back to the community)
3 - Please inform us how you 'support' the open source community (specifically MP, PX4, etc), if it is just with sales then it sounds like it's more of a benefit to you than the open source community. It's poor form to remove the donation button and then not donate anything to them (assumption on my part - please correct me if I'm incorrect). I know you wouldn't like your branded product to have a donation screen as it will confuse your customers - after all they have paid for it haven't they? If you donated $20 per solution sold I'd be viewing this very differently. I'll be starting a commercial venture this year and I plan to donate additional funds as MP will be my GCS that I'll be using - it's the right thing to do.
Item 2 is the GPL issue, note I said any binary recipient should be given a copy. As a further action to 'give' back to the community that is helping their business along they could upload it to github (not saying that have to).
The other items are just the right thing to do.... Tell us how they claim they 'support' open source, should be something they are proud of right?
Guess everyone just lives in the legal sense these days not the morally / ethically right. So sad.
So far he's not done any of those items at all. Shows what type of business they are. There are also claims that the binary recipients are not receiving the source code as required. Do you think that Craig would level that allegation without being 100% certain. Think that through for one second....
Chris
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 13 Next