5 ms·
From the linked blog post: > Let it be known that the hosts of the ApneaBoard forum have finally succeeded in their efforts to hijack the SleepyHead project.
by jonathankoren 8y ago
From the linked blog post:
> Let it be known that the hosts of the ApneaBoard forum have finally succeeded in their efforts to hijack the SleepyHead project.
Sounds like it's not "shutting down" as much as forked, and he's upset. Also it looks like the reason why it's getting forked is because critical bugs went out. People are relying on this to live, and he's treating it like a hobby -- because it is to him.
His post is full of recriminations and cries about being betrayed. Even the forum post someone found[0] in these comments supports this idea of a fork.
> ApneaBoard's recent "release committee" initiative is illegitimate and is seeking to undermine my years of work on SleepyHead and undermine my role in my own software project."
> If it's NOT SleepyHead, don't call it SleepyHead, and don't make it look like SleepyHead... it's that simple!
The code is GPLed[1]. It sounds like there were other people willing to contribute. The code goes on, without him.
[0] http://www.cpaptalk.com/viewtopic/t174687/SleepyHead-Project-Takeover-Attempt-by-AB.html http://www.cpaptalk.com/viewtopic/t174687/SleepyHead-Project...
[1] https://gitlab.com/sleepyhead/sleepyhead-code https://gitlab.com/sleepyhead/sleepyhead-code
- cabaalis 8y ago> People are relying on this to live As much as I want free software and all that, it seems like medical devices have the best cause for DRM and all the protections it affords.
- AlotOfReading 8y agoSpeaking as an embedded developer (though not currently in healthcare), no device should be sold without the manufacturer's firmware. With that said, there are plenty of cases where the hardware is fine, but the software doesn't support things the customer needs for a whole variety of reasons. I don't see why people should be protected from themselves after the sale. Releasing more firmware as open source would be a good step towards cleaning up some of the hazmat-grade codebases out there as well.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- seabird 8y agoYou know how bad codebases from huge, over-managed, "risk-averse" companies can be. You know that the people that make medical devices are generally huge, over-managed, "risk-averse" companies. I think you can put two and two together, and I really don't think you want to go in that direction.
- lima 8y ago> The code is GPLed[1]. It sounds like there were other people willing to contribute. The code goes on, without him. That's not how it works - other people are free to fork the code, but the trademark is owned by the original author. This is one of the reasons why open source foundations exist - they hold the trademark and decide on how it can be used. For instance, CNCF or Apache Foundation holds the trademark for its member projects - you can't call your Prometheus fork "Prometheus" and use their logo etc.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- x3n0ph3n3 8y agoIf he's giving up and abandoning it, then the trademark won't continue to belong to him. > Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
- Sujan 8y agoactively used != actively developed
- mindcrime 8y agoThe code is GPLed[1]. It sounds like there were other people willing to contribute. The code goes on, without him. Which means you have a license to use the code, per the original author's copyright. It does not mean you automatically have a license to the original author's trademark. In short, if you fork, you should rename your fork to something else.
- heimidal 8y agoIt wasn’t even a fork. They mirrored a binary he’d released as a test build because it was more bug-free than the prior official build. He’s upset because he didn’t like that.