4 ms·

> Apache-2.0 is designed to allow people to proprietarize Valetudo and use it in closed-source devices. At the time, the idea behind that was that _maybe_ this

by hypfer 4y ago

> Apache-2.0 is designed to allow people to proprietarize Valetudo and use it in closed-source devices. At the time, the idea behind that was that _maybe_ this would make the vendor pick it up and provide a cloud-free stock experience. In that case, it would've been fine-ish if they'd monetize the work as it would still be very much beneficial to everyone. That sentence in the docs is not directed at those. You can't reason with corporations. Instead it's directed at that crafty kind of individual that would sell pre-rooted robots just because there's money to be made. Those people that purposefully refuse to share knowledge so that they can monetize it. I am aware that it won't stop them either, but at least there's an attempt I guess. Given what I've learned in the process, I can't say for certain that I'd pick the Apache-2.0 license again but it is like that now. As far as I'm aware, re-licensing would require asking every single contributor for their consent. I'm not too fond of doing that tbh.

the_biot 4y ago
I once started an open source project where one facet was interfacing with, and even embedded firmware for, proprietary hardware. I went for the GPL precisely because vendors would otherwise use the software without giving back patches, credit etc, and indeed hide the fact that they were shipping free software in the first place. The vendors would thus not have any more inclination to be more open about their hardware's protocols etc, they'd just get free labor. And you know what? They did it anyway. Several times people shipped our software, changed just enough that it wasn't blindingly obvious at a glance, but of course we figured it out and lots of lying ensued. There is no point whatsoever in trying to be nice wrt proprietary hardware, hardline all the way. FYI the guy running the VLC project (Jean-Baptiste Kempf) once changed the license for it, 10 years after the project started, with tons of contributors to contact etc. Some patches had to be rewritten, but most authors just agreed. Took him years, but he totally did it, and VLC got the new license. I don't know if I'd recommend it, or have the stomach to do that myself, but the guy is a personal hero of mine because of it. You could be, too! :-)
goodpoint 4y ago
> You can't reason with corporations > Those people that purposefully refuse to share knowledge so that they can monetize it For both cases, again that's exactly what GPL is for. > As far as I'm aware, re-licensing would require asking every single contributor for their consent First, you can start contributing all new code under GPLv3 while keeping a copy of the Apache-2.0 license in the repo and a notice that inform users that large part of the codebase was contributed under Apache-2. According to https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 redistribution paragraph and https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Secondly, you can also ask the few major contributors if they accept switching to GPL. Those who contributed tiny changes e.g. 1-line bugfixes in the past do not have enough contribution material to have a legally standing copyright claim.
throw10920 4y ago
> Those people that purposefully refuse to share knowledge so that they can monetize it. Since when do individuals have an obligation to share knowledge for free?
- hypfer 4y ago
  They don't, however refusing to do so usually indicates a lack of skill. Capable people don't need to purposefully control the flow of information just so that they have an advantage. They have an advantage because they're capable. Of course there may be other and actual valid reasons for why someone might not share all information. That's not what I'm talking about in the previous comment though.
_carbyau_ 4y ago
I have an S5 which I updated with some firmware generated from a site Dan Giese was running but I don't recall Valetudo as a name. But I would have loved to be able to simply buy one pre-rooted AND pay $50-$100 extra for it. I honestly think there is a market for "same robot as your neighbour, but not spying on you!" I'd buy two more for my parents. But I'd want it to be clear about what they are doing. Like https://www.flashrouters.com/ https://www.flashrouters.com/

by hypfer 4y ago

the_biot 4y ago

I once started an open source project where one facet was interfacing with, and even embedded firmware for, proprietary hardware. I went for the GPL precisely because vendors would otherwise use the software without giving back patches, credit etc, and indeed hide the fact that they were shipping free software in the first place. The vendors would thus not have any more inclination to be more open about their hardware's protocols etc, they'd just get free labor. And you know what? They did it anyway. Several times people shipped our software, changed just enough that it wasn't blindingly obvious at a glance, but of course we figured it out and lots of lying ensued. There is no point whatsoever in trying to be nice wrt proprietary hardware, hardline all the way. FYI the guy running the VLC project (Jean-Baptiste Kempf) once changed the license for it, 10 years after the project started, with tons of contributors to contact etc. Some patches had to be rewritten, but most authors just agreed. Took him years, but he totally did it, and VLC got the new license. I don't know if I'd recommend it, or have the stomach to do that myself, but the guy is a personal hero of mine because of it. You could be, too! :-)

goodpoint 4y ago

> You can't reason with corporations > Those people that purposefully refuse to share knowledge so that they can monetize it For both cases, again that's exactly what GPL is for. > As far as I'm aware, re-licensing would require asking every single contributor for their consent First, you can start contributing all new code under GPLv3 while keeping a copy of the Apache-2.0 license in the repo and a notice that inform users that large part of the codebase was contributed under Apache-2. According to https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 redistribution paragraph and https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Secondly, you can also ask the few major contributors if they accept switching to GPL. Those who contributed tiny changes e.g. 1-line bugfixes in the past do not have enough contribution material to have a legally standing copyright claim.

throw10920 4y ago

> Those people that purposefully refuse to share knowledge so that they can monetize it. Since when do individuals have an obligation to share knowledge for free?

hypfer 4y ago
They don't, however refusing to do so usually indicates a lack of skill. Capable people don't need to purposefully control the flow of information just so that they have an advantage. They have an advantage because they're capable. Of course there may be other and actual valid reasons for why someone might not share all information. That's not what I'm talking about in the previous comment though.

_carbyau_ 4y ago

I have an S5 which I updated with some firmware generated from a site Dan Giese was running but I don't recall Valetudo as a name. But I would have loved to be able to simply buy one pre-rooted AND pay $50-$100 extra for it. I honestly think there is a market for "same robot as your neighbour, but not spying on you!" I'd buy two more for my parents. But I'd want it to be clear about what they are doing. Like https://www.flashrouters.com/ https://www.flashrouters.com/