Which problem can occur when you use v1.25 in combination with a third party app?
Is it advisable that v1.25 is offered for download without a description of the issue?
I donât believe this is true. The software re-distribution has to comply with the GPL license and that definitely doesnât include asking the author (or, more precisely, one of the authors) for permission.
Why do you care so much, Frank? Itâs not like anyone is trying to do harm to VESC or Vedder. People are just naturally filling a gap.
I understand that if the VESC Tool is available from other sources than the official website, it will likely affect the donations but thatâs unfortunately the problem of the open source software. If you give out something for free then you canât be mad on people for taking it.
9 Likes
You canât publish someone elseâs software, even if the software is under the GPL. The GPL covers the code and software derived from that code. It doesnât cover identity!
You can create your own fork using the sources, but you canât publish the branded software without the authors consent.
If that would be allowed, anyone could distribute VESC-Tool using the VESC brand, using Benjaminâs Vedders identity. You could compile a version with a built in trojan horse or critical bugâŚThe problem would land on Vedders feet anyway.
That is the exact reason why Trademarks exist. They make sure that you (the user) can identify a certain source and a certain quality. In this case the source is Vedder. He can make the choice what he publishes under his branding and where he publishes it! I guess you also want to make sure that people can identify you as a source and that you control what to publish under your name and what not. You would do that using your brand.
Ah shit, here we go again
14 Likes
This exist so you can use it to bully anyone trying to competing you.
4 Likes
Open source software distribution servers typically have countless of mirrors. Take linux rpm or deb packages as an example. Are you trying to imply that all these mirrors are illegal or have gone through the process of asking all the authors for permission?
1 Like
This has nothing to do with bullying. Users want to be sure that they get Vedder approved software when they download Vedder branded software.
Imagine everyone could compile a Linux OS, using the Linux brand. How would you know that your Linux OS is free of malware?
You wouldnât know if itâs malware. Which is exactly the reason why a sensible person downloads it from a trusted source and/or uses checksums on the downloaded files.
Jan, Benjamin Vedder is so kind to publish his code under the GPL. The GPL is a (free) license to use his code base under his copyright. That is a gift. The GPL does not cover the usage of identity, or the right to distribute the original, branded software.
As said before, Vedder has reasons why he distributes the software the way he does. You may like that or not. The software carries his name in it, so he should be asked.
Frank, itâs different when you say âit would be nice to talk to himâ and when you say âyou must ask him; itâs lawâ. I would never even think of disputing the former.
At any rate, I still donât understand why are you concerned. I assure you that nobody here plans on distributing the VESC Tool with malware included and/or damaging the VESC/Vedder brand in any other way. People need easy access to older versions of the VESC Tool for reasons already mentioned. This initiative is simply to fill that need.
If Ben wanted to make the older versions available for download on the official site instead, weâll all just send our thanks and donations and go home.
6 Likes
You have to ask him is the fact, at least when distributed using his trademark. The it would be nice is a matter of respect.
- Checksums are there for a reason, @Trampa
- The Vesc tool is like, when someone builds a mashine and no one knows how to use it. It is the pure chaos.
Do you have a source to support that claim? It contradicts my intuition about how GPL software works. If it was true in general, it would complicate re-use of open source software to a large extent.
Frank, with all respect, you tend to complicate things greatly. Again, itâs not like anyone here aims to do any harm. We respect Ben and his work. So far you havenât given any convincing arguments of the type âthis is bad for Ben because of Xâ. Your main argument is âyou canât do this because itâs lawâ, which is not helpful.
I mean, if you were like: VESC development relies on donations to some extent. If people donât have to come to the official site to download the VESC Tool, itâs less likely they will donate and thus there will be less donations and there will be less VESC development and everyone looses at the end⌠That would be an argument everyone would consider. Why choose âitâs lawâ instead?
8 Likes
Jan, you need to differentiate between Copyright, Trademark and Patents. These are all different things. The GPL covers only copyright matters. It is a copyright license! The GPL explicitly doesnât cover Trademarks.
Most Open Source projects have Trademarks for a reason. They want to make sure that users can identify the original source. This gets more important the more open you are.
It is up to the TM owner to decide how and where a branded product is distributed by whom.
Some OS Projects allow branded software distribution under certain terms, others donât.
I know that Benjamin does not want old Versions of VESC-Tool to be distributed. That is his decision. You may compile a de-branded version and publish that instead. If something happens it does not fall on his feet.
The monetary argument is also a valid one, but not the prime argument.
Example Mozilla Distribution Policy, allowing re-distribution under certain terms:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/distribution-policy/
When distributing you must distribute the most recent version of Firefox and other Mozilla software.
3 Likes
Regardless of wants or needs, if you guys canât manage to distribute previous versions then we will find a way to.
5 Likes
You can go to Github and compile any previous version you like. No one hinders anyone to do so.
You can strip it back from any branding and use your branding instead.
Since the upcoming VESC-Tool 2.0 will support older FW revisions it is not needed to go through such a process.
1 Like
OK, thatâs a good example. Thanks.
I donât think anyone will do that. Itâs too much work.
But why? Because I canât see anything wrong with that.
Will it really support all FW versions though or will there be a limit, such as 3.60+?
Older FWs: Probably down to 3.50.
Side note: Since 3.59 multiple USB bootloader uploads (fixes) are possible. This is a big bonus for those who f⌠up their bootloader once in a while.
Why no old Software: Same reason why Firefox doesnât want old versions to float around.
As a designer you are constantly improving things and fixing known issues. Why would you want a distribution of a version that has a known issue or imperfection or bad interaction with third party software? You want the latest version to be used.
With the upcoming VESC-Tool 2.0 you can choose to stay on old FW and enjoy new features at the same time. If something works for you, great!
I can total understand the reason for an archive, donât get me wrong. I can also understand Benjamin. Finally he decided to publish only a latest version, just like Mozilla and many others. I guess he has good reasons.
2 Likes
I have already given my POV on this here:
1 Like
Consider the following situation. You purchase a DIY build from someone based on VESCs running some 3.4x version. You use it for months. Everything is working smoothly. All the settings have already been tuned up by whoever has built it. Then one day you purchase a new remote and need to adjust the remote settings.
It makes a whole lot more sense to use a compatible VESC Tool and only change the remote settings than upgrade to the latest versions and expose yourself to the bugs that might have been introduced.
When I get a VESC Wand and need a compatible firmware, thatâs different. That will be good enough reason to upgrade but otherwise Iâll stick with âdonât fix what ainât brokenâ.
I have the automatic updates switched off on all my devices because when they are on, then 10% of time Iâm like âoh, thatâs a nice new featureâ and 90% of time itâs âwhy this thing that has worked before is no longer working!!!â
10 Likes