Sad Tale of Greed and Aspiration.

On 8/26/2010 11:00 AM, jb92563 wrote:
On Aug 25, 4:35 am, brian wrote:
I got excited when I read about the cheap chinese PNA tablets around
$100: 600MHz CP, Wince 6.0, fast GPS built-in.... On this NG.

Then it took a month to show up, after an attempted order cancellation
from the vendor (??) - Ever hear of such a thing?

I thought it would make a nice moving map update for my Garmin IQue with
Approach Systems MM (for$20, would you believe)

Then I found that the MM I was using didn't know wince 6.0.
Too bad.

Then I found that LK8000 DOES know Wince 6.0 Good!

Then I found you couldn't download LK8000, perhaps because a copyright
owner of XCsoar was objecting. Too bad.

So here I am sitting on my hands....

Brian W



Actually the XC Soar/ LK8000 paths is resulting in some great software
on both sides.

Its really no big deal to become a Beta tester for the LK8000, just
sign up and you will get
regular emails of download sites for the latest and greatest version.

I review both XC Soar and LK8000 releases and think they are both
great, although
I prefer the LK8000 since the touch zones are huge allowing you to get
things done
while being tossed around in the most vigorous of Owens Valley, CA
thermals.

Go here to read instructions and sign up.

http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/top...?TOPIC_ID=2940

Here are the Instructions from the link above to save you a few
clicks.

quote
If you want to become a betatester for LK8000, you need to be already
experienced on XCSoar, and even better if you already used the LK8000-
alfa9 version released in July 2009.

Beta testing is coordinated by several people.

Glider pilots should ask:
- Mino dgtrecentow
- Allan Broadribb (USA)

Paraglider pilots should ask:
- Sergio TiGuy (Portugal)
- Bjorn aka Bo (Norway)

Do not ask publicy on the forum, ask directly to them (only one of
them!). Do not bother other people here with your requests please!

When you write for becoming betatester, do always remember to tell:

- Full name
- Country
- Age
- Glider or paraglider you fly
- Devices you are using (full description)
- Software you have been using so far (ex. 5.2.3Fb8)

Your job is to test the software to ensure it is doing what it is
designed to do - NOT to suggest new or improved features.

BUGS should be reported directly to the LK8000 v1.xx beta test thread
in the forum.
/quote





What kind of beta test program discourages people from suggesting design
improvements?????

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 26, 10:56*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/26/2010 11:00 AM, jb92563 wrote:



On Aug 25, 4:35 am, brian *wrote:
I got excited when I read about the cheap chinese PNA tablets around
$100: * 600MHz CP, Wince 6.0, fast GPS built-in.... On this NG.

Then it took a month to show up, after an attempted order cancellation
from the vendor (??) *- Ever hear of such a thing?

I thought it would make a nice moving map update for my Garmin IQue with
Approach Systems MM (for$20, would you believe)

Then I found that the MM I was using didn't know wince 6.0.
Too bad.

Then I found that LK8000 DOES know Wince 6.0 * *Good!

Then I found you couldn't download LK8000, perhaps because a copyright
owner of XCsoar was objecting. * *Too bad.

So here I am sitting on my hands....

Brian W

Actually the XC Soar/ LK8000 paths is resulting in some great software
on both sides.

Its really no big deal to become a Beta tester for the LK8000, just
sign up and you will get
regular emails of download sites for the latest and greatest version.

I review both XC Soar and LK8000 releases and think they are both
great, although
I prefer the LK8000 since the touch zones are huge allowing you to get
things done
while being tossed around in the most vigorous of Owens Valley, CA
thermals.

Go here to read instructions and sign up.

http://www.postfrontal.com/forum/top...?TOPIC_ID=2940

Here are the Instructions from the link above to save you a few
clicks.

quote
If you want to become a betatester for LK8000, you need to be already
experienced on XCSoar, and even better if you already used the LK8000-
alfa9 version released in July 2009.

Beta testing is coordinated by several people.

Glider pilots should ask:
- Mino dgtrecentow
- Allan Broadribb (USA)

Paraglider pilots should ask:
- Sergio TiGuy (Portugal)
- Bjorn aka Bo (Norway)

Do not ask publicy on the forum, ask directly to them (only one of
them!). Do not bother other people here with your requests please!

When you write for becoming betatester, do always remember to tell:

- Full name
- Country
- Age
- Glider or paraglider you fly
- Devices you are using (full description)
- Software you have been using so far (ex. 5.2.3Fb8)

Your job is to test the software to ensure it is doing what it is
designed to do - NOT to suggest new or improved features.

BUGS should be reported directly to the LK8000 v1.xx beta test thread
in the forum.
/quote

What kind of beta test program discourages people from suggesting design
improvements?????

--
Mike Schumann


Easy now Folks, that last part is out of context. "NOT to suggest new
or improved features." .....my fault for not carefully editing.

If you go to the actual forum you will see that there is another
distinct place to put suggestions and
the meaning got lost when I clipped a quote to make life easier here
for everyone.

The developers just wanted 1 place to look for BUGS, which are fixit
priorities over new features, instead of having to read through
hundreds of emails and interpret the bugs from the suggestions.

Also, when visiting this site you have to remember that the prime
developers first language is NOT English
so you have to interpret with a "European to English" twist in mind
and not take every word literally, but rather
distill meaning from the paragraphs as a whole.

Ray

So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is distributed
under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be used/distributed),
create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual obligations with the
original author?

And that we should all help and support the LK8000 author in undermining
this agreement by keeping the distribution channel 'underground' so that
this distribution cannot be so easily proved by the original (XCSoar)
author, thereby leaving him with no redress?

I think those that are using LK8000 need to take a step back and ask
themselves whether what they are doing is really acceptable.

NB I have played no part in the development of XCSoar or LK8000, but as a
coder who was worked on several GPL'ed projects, I would be MIGHTY pi55ed
off someone did to me what the LK8000 lot seem to have done to the XCSoar
authors. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of LK8000 suddenly
decide, post-beta, to make it a commercial product. I have seen this kind
of thing happen before...

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:41:46 +0000, Michael Jaworski wrote:

So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is
distributed under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be
used/distributed), create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual
obligations with the original author?

Both projects have gone off in slightly different directions. I haven't
seen XCSoar code since shortly after it was open sourced, but it was
somewhat messy and definitely uncommented at that point. Since then I
know Max has been tidying it up and modularising it with a view to making
it less dependent on one OS. Meanwhile a lot of LK8000 has been
rewritten, e.g. it uses different task file and mapping data formats now.

The bottom line is that the projects have most likely diverged
sufficiently that merging code bases now would be more trouble than its
worth.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Aug 27, 5:29*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:41:46 +0000, Michael Jaworski wrote:
So basically the message being promulgated here is that it is ok for the
LK8000 team to take someone else's copyrighted work (which is
distributed under a licence with strict terms stating how it can be
used/distributed), create a derivative work and shirk on his contractual
obligations with the original author?

Both projects have gone off in slightly different directions. I haven't
seen XCSoar code since shortly after it was open sourced, but it was
somewhat messy and definitely uncommented at that point. Since then I
know Max has been tidying it up and modularising it with a view to making
it less dependent on one OS. Meanwhile a lot of LK8000 has been
rewritten, e.g. it uses different task file and mapping data formats now.

The bottom line is that the projects have most likely diverged
sufficiently that merging code bases now would be more trouble than its
worth.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that
effectlively underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright
infringement and violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this
behavior worrying.

Implications of the GPL just should not be a surprise to developers
going on open source projects. Pretending something is a restricted
distribution but effectively encouraging wide underground distribution
is unlikely to stand up in court. I wonder what the agreement looks
like with the participants that governs their behavior in the LK8000
program? Does it require them not to redistibute code? Will the LK8000
developer remove participants in that program mentioned here who
appear to be doing of blatant redistibution? By not investigating that
or taking action the likely argument would be that they are materially
conducting public distribution of the binaries (and therefore need to
make the source code widely available). The remedy for all this is
really really easy, make the source available. People here who are not
developers or who have no close experience with open source may not
understand the implications. To many open source software developers
this behavior is not seen as subtle dicking around the edges stuff,
its seen as stealing.

BTW anybody reading (and if you are posting in this thread then I'd
assume you've read it) and then distributing the binaries to others is
going to have a hard time every denying they committed willful
copyright infringement. Ask your lawyer the difference between willful
and non-willful infringement. If I was one of the original copyright
owners everybody identified in thread as distributing the code would
be getting cease and desist letters. Likely nothing will happen, but
just maybe at some time lawyers in the GPL ecosystem will come across
this and go after folks to make a point, as they've done on other
cases, including the theft of the model railroad JMRI GPL code. So
help them out by keeping posting names and contact information on how
to get the LK8000 software.


Darryl

In article
,
Darryl Ramm wrote:

How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that
effectlively underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright
infringement and violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this
behavior worrying.

How does it violate the GPL? The GPL simply states that you must give
the source code to anyone who you gave the software to, if they ask, and
that you can't restrict others from distributing either. From what I've
gathered, it sounds like the LK8000 author(s) are simply requesting that
people not redistribute it further. So long as it remains a *request*,
it's completely within the terms of the GPL.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Aug 27, 8:25 am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
Darryl Ramm wrote:

How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that
effectlively underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright
infringement and violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this
behavior worrying.

How does it violate the GPL? The GPL simply states that you must give
the source code to anyone who you gave the software to, if they ask, and
that you can't restrict others from distributing either. From what I've
gathered, it sounds like the LK8000 author(s) are simply requesting that
people not redistribute it further. So long as it remains a *request*,
it's completely within the terms of the GPL.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike, and others

I do not believe the LK8000 developer is providing source access to
people with access to the binary. The binaries are effectively being
widely distributed. And it seems without meeting the GPL requirements
for making source available to those recipients. I'd love to be wrong
about any of this. Are written notices included with the binaries
letting users know how they may request source code? or is the source
code available for those users to download from a network server? If
not then what are the terms of any agreement in place with current
users providing testing of the software for the developers? (this is a
more difficult route to use to argue you do not need to provide source
code access to a group of people with access to the binary).

A mere "request" by a developer to users not to redistribute binaries,
without also meeting other requirements (Section 2 below) for limited
binary only distribution is unlikely to immunize the developer from
requirements to provide source code and could be seen itself as a
violation of the GPL on restricting distribution. And as I mention
some people will argue that there is effectively no limited testing/
beta/alpha allowed outside a single organization without also
requiring source code distribution/access.

Without getting prissy with the legal crap (which I will do below)
this just does seem to be outside the spirit of the GPL and open
source development. And to me its just a pity as everything I hear
about the LK8000 software is very complimentary and the people
involved seem very technically competent. And yes I understand how
things can get into these messy situations, and I understand why
people want to use the LK8000 software and share it etc. And how many
many non-developers will not understand all the implications of the
GPL. Probably the easiest path to curing this situation is for the
LK8000 developer to just release the code (or remove all XCSoar
copyright code). Appearing to really avoid releasing code may start
people worrying that there may be intent here to take the code
commercial (which they can do if they remove all other non-original
code).

----

Prissy legal stuff follows ... the GPL issue is one of "conveying" a
covered work and then the requirement for providing source code. I'll
try to assemble the two sections from the current GPL that are
relevant. One argument goes that there are certain very restricted
'private' distribution of binaries only that can allow developers not
to provide source at all, and the other general argument controls what
a developer and others must do to provide source code for other
(usual) situations. My comments below in [].

---

From the GPL v3

GPL v3 Section 2 BASIC PERMISSIONS....

....You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of
having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

[This clause is used by some folks to argue it is possible to do some
limited alpha/beta testing without triggering the usual GPL source
distribution requirements but to do that the participants in the alpha/
beta program must DO SO EXCLUSIVELY ON YOUR BEHALF, UNDER YOUR
DIRECTION AND CONTROL, ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT PROHIBIT THEM FROM
MAKING ANY COPIES... etc. The FSF themselves argue this is not allowed
if you "distribute" an alpha/beta/etc. version, i.e. it all depends on
what is meant by "distribute". A simple test of this control would be
what is in any alpha/beta/test agreement that participants have been
required to agree to. Another test is when the developer is aware of
violations of this part of the GPL what action have they taken? If a
developer wants to use this argument then its really their
responsibility to require and maintain compliance with this. Many open-
source developers never go down this path to argue they don't need to
provide source code to alpha/beta/test users - they just provide
source access as required elsewhere in the GPL.]

---

[If the developer does not meet the requirements mentioned above and
executable are conveyed outside of the limited situation allowed (and
I suspect that may have occurred here) then the usual GPL source code
distribution requirements kicks in. And it is not just "if somebody
with the binary asks for source code"...]

GPL v3 Section 6. CONVEYING NON-SOURCE FORMS.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these
ways:

* a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily
used for software interchange.
* b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written
offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you
offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give
anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the
Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used
for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable
cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access
to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
* c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of
the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only
if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with
subsection 6b.
* d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy
the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be
on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports
equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions
next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to
satisfy these requirements.
* e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission,
provided you inform other peers where the object code and
Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general
public at no charge under subsection 6d.

[6 (a) and (b) don't apply since the usual distribution here is non-
physical distribution of the LK8000 binary. 6 (c) may apply
"occasionally" and requires a written offer for a physical medium *or*
provision on a network server. An interpretation of this is that
participants in an alpha/beta may fall under 6 (c) but was the offer
to provide the LK8000 source actually made in writing to participants?
If it was not made in writing in an offer in the binary distribution
then the source needs to be on a network server accessible to
recipients of the binary. And those recipients can copy and distribute
that source code freely.

A lawyer might try to argue that there is an "underground"/multi-tier
distribution used in an attempt circumvent the 6 (c) requirement, and/
or fails the "occasional" test and therefore 6 (d) or 6 (e) should
apply. The occasional test is likely to be ambiguous - but I'd argue
that if all distribution of a work over time used this form of source
code distribution then it was not "occasional". Limited use for a new
alpha/beta likely passes this "occasional" test. But that just gives
the developer the option of using the written offer to provide source.
And they need to make that offer up front in writing if they want to
use that option. And once you no longer meet the "occasional" test you
are effectively forced to provide a network or peer-peer download.
Nowadays most GPL developers just push source onto an online server as
it is easy, involves less work and meets compliance across all parts
of Section 6.]



Darryl

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:17:51 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:

How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that effectlively
underground wide distribution of LK8000 is copyright infringement and
violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this behavior worrying.

Explanatory.

On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.
I have no idea why this happened, but it could well have been due to
source incompatibility, since at the same time Max was cleaning up and
refactoring the main code base in an effort to improve its
maintainability.

All I know was that the then main PNA developer vanished from sight for a
while before setting up the LK8000 fork. In the interim XCSoar 5.2.4
appeared. It did not, and still does not, have an official PNA release.
Anybody running XCSoar 5.2.4 on a PNA is, like me, running one of Max
Kellerman's two unofficial versions. I'm very grateful for them:
otherwise I'd still be running 5.2.2.

I don't know where that leaves your theory about the LK8000 project
refusing to pass updates back to the root project: there's a big
difference between a refusal to contribute and having that contribution
rejected.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Aug 27, 2:28*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:17:51 -0700, Darryl Ramm wrote:
How is what you wrote in any way relevent to the point that effectlively
underground wide distribution of LK8000 is *copyright infringement and
violation of the GPL? Like Michael I also find this behavior worrying.

Explanatory.

On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.
I have no idea why this happened, but it could well have been due to
source incompatibility, since at the same time Max was cleaning up and
refactoring the main code base in an effort to improve its
maintainability.

All I know was that the then main PNA developer vanished from sight for a
while before setting up the LK8000 fork. In the interim XCSoar 5.2.4
appeared. It did not, and still does not, have an official PNA release.
Anybody running XCSoar 5.2.4 on a PNA is, like me, running one of Max
Kellerman's two unofficial versions. I'm very grateful for them:
otherwise I'd still be running 5.2.2.

I don't know where that leaves your theory about the LK8000 project
refusing to pass updates back to the root project: there's a big
difference between a refusal to contribute and having that contribution
rejected.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

Martin

This is not really irrelevant to the issue at hand of whether XK80000
is meeting source code provision requirements of the GPL or not. I
have never made any comment about the provision of code changes to the
the original XCSoar project, or those developers accepting or not
those changes, etc. And whatever happened there does not modify the
rights of the original copyright owners or modify any of the GPL
license terms.

The original developers do not have to be provided with any special
access any different to anybody else, they do not need to like the
changes to "their code" or approve them. If somebody else wants to
contribute but they have a falling out and that developer(s) takes the
code and branch/rewrite it and makes it better -- then too bad. And if
those changes becomes popular -- maybe a sign they should have
listened to those developers. And maybe sometimes everybody is better
off with multiple branches, especially if they address different uses/
end-users better.

Developers working with GPL code are mostly free to do whatever they
want, including things that original developers do not agree with -
but they need to make clear those changes have been made and they need
to provide the source code to the user community in the ways I've
outlined in other posts in this thread. That is the apparent issue
here.

Darryl

At 21:28 27 August 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:

On thinking back to when LK8000 was forked, almost a year ago, IIRC the
trigger for the fork was a refusal of the XCSoar project leaders to
accept a large set of changes, all connected with the PNA implementation.


John Wharington, who took lead of the GPLed XCSoar project from the start,
was the one who decided the source code needed overhauling for XCSoar 6.0.
Paul (the LK8000 programmer) wanted to concentrate on new features. To do
both at the same time required very substantial changes to the working
methods Paul had been using (and I can understand is very difficult
regardless); consequently Paul was frustrated at the change of direction.
To be fair he wasn't the only one, and another developer left the project
at the same time. I think the subsequent project 'fork' was inevitable at
this point because Paul and the XCSoar project had different objectives.

Along with the change of direction, John wanted some of the new features
Paul was working on to be specifically excluded from XCSoar, the
LX8000-style interface being perhaps the most significant example.

I feel that making that decision to temporarily change the focus of the
project was entirely John's right - scan through the archives of the
xcsoar-devel lists since the early days and reach your own conclusion.

I expect I've oversimplified the situation, but that's the basics.

Regards,

Simon