This is a very bold statement, considering it’s nigh impossible for the average user to figure out how to install an older version of firmware from VESC-Tool.
7 Likes
I can open a thread with the links to the FWs at release date.
Then you can simply click the link and you will find the FW you are looking for.
Very simple and only a few minutes of work really.
11 Likes
Github already has this functionality, you simply choose not to use it. It’s even simpler, and even less work, really.
5 Likes
This would be perfect!
1 Like
Guys, this is getting derailed real quick and nobody is gonna benefit from that. Not the vendor, not the people seeking support for their products, not the people arguing over features or licenses.
-
The GPL not being honored is a problem. The community and Vedder (or in his absence @Trampa) should discuss that with the manufacturer, but for god’s sake, elsewhereThat seems to have been properly addressed. Thanks @jaykup !! - A trademark infringement should again be adressed elsewhere (independently from our feelings on the subject of a logo vs. possible software/hardware issues…)
- Being able to do things a certain way doesn’t make it ok or convenient. I’m a software developer, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t love to just fucking select a FW version from the latest available VESC tool, let it download it from the internet and flash it directly withouth having to go through any hoops. @Trampa OSS software and all the hard work Vedder has offered for free over the years doesn’t shield anyone from fair criticism. Getting defensive and discusing legalese is not a good way to handle it.
- It’s understandable that the reduced team that actively contributes code to the VESC project cannot test every possible HW/SW combo, but a lot can be done to at least make it less dangerous to test and contribute to the project without risking damaged hardware or personal injury.
Let’s try to be civil, maintain a conversation. Open bug reports, document workarounds and findings, provide manufacturer insight, contribute code or any way you can.
FFS.
5 Likes
I will do this tomorrow. I will also describe how to upload older FW and why you don’t need an older VESC-Tool and where the GIT repository is and how to set back the clock etc.
11 Likes
Some have issues to find the right spot in the time line… So I can understand that Users have issues to find the FW they are looking for. The downside of using older FW is the fact that there could be a bug in the FW and it was fixed and therefore you should not use this specific FW any longer. So in most cases it is wise to stay up to date or with the latest FW that worked for you.
So you are going to devote your time rebuilding the version control tag and release system into a less featured, and more expensive, custom system, taking time away from doing other things? Instead of just using the tags and releases on Github like nearly every other large open source project? The things that have been expressly designed to solve this exact problem, are free, work very well, and are fast to use for you and for end users? Instead of the fast, cheap, and good way, you want to use a worse, more expensive, and less good way that may need recurring maintenance in the future?
Have you discussed this in a meeting with engineers?
11 Likes
For reference, this is what a release channel generally looks like:
Super useful for keeping version history with functional access to each release.
9 Likes
He’s too busy trying to figure out how to go after people for redistributing software that’s under a fucking gpl license
1 Like
Look at all these illegal forks.
From the VESC GPL V3 licence agreement found here
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
- a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
- b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.
- c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
- d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
8 Likes
Roman is also kind enough to maintain actual release versioning here, for historical reference. Doesn’t seem to be an issue hosted there, nor should it.
By Frank’s “definition” nobody is allowed to fork VESC-Tool on GitHub. Which is a primary function of hosting code there. 
#oldmanyellsatclouds
15 Likes
While the software is GPLed, the TM is not part of the license and only Blender can use the TM to mark their products. VESC-Tool is the same. Vedder holds the TM and he marks his release with the VESC logo. This tells users that he is actually behind the offer and he compiled it and offers it.
Anyone else needs to use a different branding, showing that the software comes from them.
You can share your code under GPL terms, but you don’t have to share your branding.
Software and branding of software are simply two different things.
Benjamin Vedder chose the way to distribute his software under his branding via his channels and he has every right to make that decision. Thankfully he was kind enough to offer the source code but that doesn’t mean you can use his brand. This is the way how most OS-Projects handle things BTW; a very common practice and there is nothing wrong about it.
Wrong, Frank. You can’t use a trademark to restrict the terms of the GPL. You literally don’t understand the basis of GPL. Educate yourself:
Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you **has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version**. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL **gives them the freedom to release it to the public**, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public
People are literally free to sell VESC-tool if they so choose. You should probably understand the license before you try to enforce it.
4 Likes
You have to educate yourself a bit more… The GPL is not a trademark license agreement. It only covers the code, not the trademark.
The GPL is a license that defines the terms of use for the code. A license does not serve the same function as a copyright or trademark and the GPL itself is designed for software not for logos or names
Trademark and copyright laws are different and should be treated as such.
The responsibility is on the person forking and redistributing a plugin or theme to ensure no copyrights or trademarks are being infringed. Sean Lang learned this lesson the hard way when he tried to redistribute a version of WP Migrate DB Pro but mistakenly used copyrighted content within the Readme.MD.
.
Then you can choose to publish it without your trademark included.
GPL allows anyone to rehost the software to the public.
Trademarks are jurisdictional, where the license provides general/global usage and restrictions to reuse.
You cannot publish code that is is “illegal” to simply click the “fork” on, that would be considered entrapment. It’s also against the very nature of GPL.
By publishing the code under GPL, users are allowed to republish/rehost unmodified versions of your code to the public. That’s different from using a trademark to sell a product. If Benjamin doesn’t want unmodified versions of his code to contain his trademark, he’s free to publish a version without. But as of now, his own usage guidelines on the official VESC website (as quoted above by @Lee_Wright ) completely contradict what you’re claiming anyway.
PS: you clearly didn’t even read the comments on your random unsourced opinion piece from some guys WordPress blog. Nice sources, my dudes.
5 Likes
The reason behind Open Source code is the fact that the authors share the code and knowledge with others, not their copyright or trademark. So the GPL only covers the code bit of it, not the copyright and Trademark. If you run a fork or plan to distribute the software yourself, you have to then use your own branding. Typically no one has an issue with the source code format, but compiled software is where the trouble usually starts.