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.
You are just making things up now. It’s not about feelings, GPL gives very explicit terms of use.
You cannot outlaw the fork button if the author has allowed it, you can only disable future forks. Also- Integrated CI can automatically compile & release VESC-tool. Illegal robots.
You cannot violate trademark when the author himself has allowed the code to be freely copied & rehosted, under GPL, on GitHub.
Based on your misunderstanding of the license, anyone who clicks fork is in violation of your trademark? Good luck not getting laughed out of court on that one.
This is “I put a free brownies sign on this plate of brownies and people ate them” levels of complaint. A judge would be mad at you for wasting their time, at best.
4 Likes
The author has a Trademark Policy in place, just like Blender or Linux do have one:
https://vesc-project.com/trademark_policies
I can click the Fork button all the same.
Big difference between rehosting under rights granted to GPL, and misusing someone’s trademark. The two are not the same.
Also:
^ from Vedder’s website.
Sure wouldn’t be difficult to argue this in court, if you wanted to burn up some of your own $$$ to be proven wrong. Both the author and the publishing license, as well as the platform that it’s published with, all encourage rehosting the code verbatim.
Here’s the documentation on forking:
The author (Vedder) chose to allow it, so your entire argument is moot. Easily could be interpreted as fair & intended use given license and context.
2 Likes
Typically you can re-host the code base but you need to stick to the TM policies of the relevant projects.
The GPL is simply not a trademark license, it covers the code only.
The brand usage is simply not relevant for the functionality.
So you can easily use the code under the GPL terms, but not the branding.
You also don’t acquire the copyright. That also stays with the author.
Clicking the button might put you into trouble if a trademark owner decides to comes after you in a certain country. TM law differs a lot from country to country.
However, usually no one goes after source code repositories. Publishing executable software under a TM you don’t own will most certainly cause you trouble. TM owners are typically not very relaxed about you using their TM. In consequence they put up TM policies to make this fact very clear.
Yeah sure, Frank.
One of us is actually a professional software engineer while the other is a wayward architect with a penchant for squarular box design and a questionable grasp of basic law and logic.
It’s unenforceable, Vedder explicitly set the forking policy of the repo. The end.
Stay in your lane bud.
5 Likes
Again, software code and trademark are two different things…
And licensing is another different thing. I guess you understand some code but for
sure you have very little clue about licensing and trademark law.
If you want to interpret the GPL as a trademark license than that is up to you.
I can promise you that this is not the case. The GPL is dealing with the issue of copyright.
Copyright law and trademark law are two very different things.
A trademark is a explicit right to use a mark in trade. A copyright is the right to offer copies of a work under certain terms, specified in the license. There is no requirement for you to attach the trademark and also no right to do so. You only receive a copyright for the code base of the “The Program, to any copyrightable work licensed under this License”. Trademarks are simply not copyrightable. Artwork, text, literature etc. are copyrightable. Trademarks are trademarks. You can license them with the use of a trademark license.
#### Preamble
The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
#### TERMS AND CONDITIONS
##### 0. Definitions.
“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.
“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations