That is why the new Tool will let you chose to not update the FW. Benjamin already addressed the issue you mentioned. The original configuration will be saved and re-uploaded. Everything will stay the same after a software upgrade.
There are upsides and downsides to everything! It is a complex matter.
You shine the light from one side, Vedder can show you how the other sides look like.
In the end the publisher makes a choice, based on this best knowledge.
Mozilla made the choice to only distribute the latest version, Vedder did the same.
You canât skip the original publishers consent and make decisions in his name.
Still, people will keep using the older VESC FW versions, not supported by the VESC Tool 2.0. I canât see whatâs wrong with providing the compatible VESC Tools for them. Apparently itâs not
since that contradicts the decision for backwards compatibility in the new VESC Tool.
Many people (me included) use Ackmaniacâs firmware version, which is a fork of the 3.28 VESC FW. Thatâs pretty old and yet it works very well.
Depends on if you are well informed or not.
The Ack fork is for example not good for use with later model of the V6 Hardware. 6.4 and laterâŚ
The motor wizard would not get very accurate values. The old FW doesnât consider the changed HW configuration of the later model.
There is also a bug in there, reacting on over-signal of PPM receivers. That can send you flying at full speed. As a developer I would not want that FW to be used. In this case it does not fall on Benjaminâs feet, since the fork has to use a different branding.
VESC FW s always backward compatible. New FW can run on older devices. You shouldnât run older FW on newer devices.
Again: There are also bugs that got resolved and should not find their way back onto devices.
These bugs could only occur in certain setups, maybe in combination with third party software, Benjamin fixed them after getting feedback. Now you think the FW xyz is super mega stable and promote it. Users download that FW from the archive, according to your advice, and get the reported issue again.
Unless you would run an archive with all notes relevant to the old FW, it is not a good idea to publish them. The man who has all that knowledge is Vedder.
Why arenât we seeing the reports of that happening then?
Any software will only get stable enough after a lot of testing. Newer = more features. Older = more stable. If you donât need the new features, donât upgrade. If what you have works for you, donât upgrade.
Because it might only occur once in a while on certain setups and users canât track it back to the bug.
Newer = more features. Older = more stable.
That is not always true. Older can have a bug that someone found a while ago.
An old version of a browser is likely to have unpatched security relevant loopholes for hackers.
The latest version is likely to to have it addressed.
Jan, you can debate that matter for ages.
The point is: If a developer makes the decision to only publish the latest version, he does it for reasons.
It is his active choice! If he addresses the issues you mention, making older FW compatible, the issue of FW compatibility got fixed. We will see that in the New VESC-Tool 2.0
Benjamin knows the matter front to back and he considered everything before making the decision to not run an archive.
You can still distribute the software however you see fit, you just canât call it VESC because of the trademark.
GPL is a free license.
Please donât muddy the waters by misinterpreting or misrepresenting GPL, the usage here contradict the intended purpose of GPL
This has nothing to do with GPL and everything to do with the trademark being used as a shield.
Itâs simpler if you just say: âyou can distribute the compiled/source software (under GPL) but you cannot call it VESC Tool because Trampa/BV owns the VESC trademarkâ.
In this case the trademark is used to prohibit certain usage of the GPL, which is where the potential conflict of interest arises.
There is no conflict of interest. The author grants a right to use his copyright material but not his identity.
The GPL is about the copyright not identity. It is about the knowledge in the code base and sharing that knowledge. This is the reason why different Linux distributions all carry their own identity. They can share the same code base, but do not share identity.
So letâs keep this a trademark/branding issue, and keep the GPL completely separate from it.
This is not true. This is why Iâm saying to focus on this being brand protection/trademark control, not some murky protection afforded by GPL. GPL has nothing to do with this.
The conflict of interest I speak of comes from a trademark owning, for-profit entity âpolicing GPLâ as a means to enforce their trademark. Weâve been over this, itâs one of the reasons OSRF was created.
Iâm with @janpom on this, the level in which you seem to need to maintain complete control over all facets of this is concerning.
I have to disagree: You can compile your own version of the tool and manage that software yourself. Your right to use the code is only limited by the GPL license. It is a given horse in the end. However, you canât publish that software using an identity that is not your identity.
What I say: Someone needs to approach Vedder before making decisions for him. He is the publisher of the VESC-Tool under his identity. I do know that he is against publishing old releases since I had a debate about that just recently.
The trademark and GPL issues is why CentOS was born from RedHat. There are many different open source licenses, each with their own flavor to support the owners of the software.
If someone were to setup a mirror repository of the VESC-tool, change the trademarked name, and merge the changes from Vedder the community could produce itâs own software independent of Trampa. Not the first time itâs been done, and wouldnât be the last.
And they could sell it for profit if they so chose. Really all they have to change is the trademarked name/brand/identity.
And they can do that without further permission or communication with Mr. Vedder, because the GPL already expressly grants that permission.
Iâm not sure what you are disagreeing with.
I agree with this. You can sell it too.
Free license. Free as in freedom.
Nobody here is arguing that they can use the VESC trademark. Iâm not sure why you keep banging this drum.
My point is to deliberately define what GPL means, in this context and in a general sense. If you remove the trademark aspect from your statements about GPL, your statements become untrue.
Sure you can do that. You then manage your own fork under your own identity and can then decide what to do, as long as you stick to the GPL. Nico did that for a while, Jeffrey did it.
However, that has nothing to do with the fact that itâs Vedders choice how to publish VESC-Tool.
If he doesnât want VESC-Tool 1.xx to be public under the VESC brand that is his choice.
I never once said otherwise. I think you understand Iâm pretty well familiar with open source licensure.
Iâm challenging that some of the statements youâve made in this conversation obfuscate rather than clarify the topic.
GPL means anyone can take it and reuse the code so long as they keep the license intact, and abide by the license. GPL happens to be one of the most open, free licenses available.
The fact that the GPL licensed software has a Trademarked name is the only semi-confusing aspect of this.
Legally and practically, nothing stops anyone from forking the VESC-Tool repository, which is intrinsically a form of distribution and creates a separate distribution fork. This is an integral part of Open Source software & GitHub development workflow.
Are you suggesting that every person that forks the GPL licensed VESC repository must remove the name VESC from the codebase immediately?
Genuinely curious.
For reference, cliffnotes on GPL GNU v3, note the section on distribution of original works.
There are TM policies up on Vedders page. If you run a fork you re-brand it and stick to the TM policies.
This is the common way to deal with such issues. The GPL is a copyright license, not a Trademark license.
If it comes to sources: As far as I know, the TM covers any usage of the TM, even in sources. This is a point where the GPL might clash with TM regulations. It will depend on how the TM owner handles that issue. In the worst case the TM owner might go after a fork that didnât strip the TMs. A quick search on the internet brings up some cases.
Ubuntu, for instance, may be freely distributed in its complete, compiled form, despite the trademarks which are registered by Canonical.
Sure, we cannot use the VESC brand in our own creations. But despite inclusion in the open source VESC tool project, there are no issues with us distributing.
IF Benjamin intended otherwise, as I have the utmost respect for his work, I would listen to what he has to say.
