4 ms·

There's a bit more info in this forum thread: https://intofpv.com/t-orqa-goggles-bootloader-bricking-issue-was-ransomware https://intofpv.com/t-orqa-goggles-boo

There's a bit more info in this forum thread: https://intofpv.com/t-orqa-goggles-bootloader-bricking-issue-was-ransomware https://intofpv.com/t-orqa-goggles-bootloader-bricking-issue...

nailer 3y ago
Pasting the relevant part: ——— Official Statment SWARG as the copyright owner implemented a time-limited license into the code used by ORQA. The license has expired which causes a blocked device until a new license is provided. To enable normal usage of the product SWARG provides a license extension till 1. July 2023. In the meantime, SWARG and ORQA will hopefully reach an agreement about Copyright/licensing. You can download the binary files under the following link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...3XtHTUEVsN https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...3XtHTUEVsN To extend the license place the update.bin file into a license folder at the root of the SD card. After the update is finished delete the folder with its content and perform a firmware update by placing the .orqa update file at the root of the SD card. Thank you for your attention. Dr.techn. Tomislav Jukić CEO at SWARG d.o.o.
- olliej 3y ago
  We get that the contractor claims that they put a time limit in the license, and we know that they hid a technical enforcement mechanism in it. But what matters is the contract that they signed for the development contract that they undertook. It could be that ORQA’s lawyers really screwed up, but in every contract-for-code I have ever encountered (either directly or through friends), the copyright of the written code ends up belonging to the company hiring the contractor, not the contractor. Given the way the contractor handled the “license violation”, they’ve already put themselves in the unethical behavior bin and so I don’t trust them unless they demonstrate that the contracts they agreed to left the copyright with the contractor, and included a time limit. The latter especially would be “time to fire our law firm” moment for ORQA, if it’s actually what has happened.
  - nailer 3y ago
    > Given the way the contractor handled the “license violation” This presupposes the entity that created the code was hired as a contractor, rather than a company with intellectual property to license.
    - newaccount74 3y ago
      It doesn't really matter, as long as the contract doesn't explicitly warn about the bricking.

There's a bit more info in this forum thread: https://intofpv.com/t-orqa-goggles-bootloader-bricking-issue-was-ransomware https://intofpv.com/t-orqa-goggles-bootloader-bricking-issue...

nailer 3y ago

Pasting the relevant part: ——— Official Statment SWARG as the copyright owner implemented a time-limited license into the code used by ORQA. The license has expired which causes a blocked device until a new license is provided. To enable normal usage of the product SWARG provides a license extension till 1. July 2023. In the meantime, SWARG and ORQA will hopefully reach an agreement about Copyright/licensing. You can download the binary files under the following link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...3XtHTUEVsN https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...3XtHTUEVsN To extend the license place the update.bin file into a license folder at the root of the SD card. After the update is finished delete the folder with its content and perform a firmware update by placing the .orqa update file at the root of the SD card. Thank you for your attention. Dr.techn. Tomislav Jukić CEO at SWARG d.o.o.

olliej 3y ago
We get that the contractor claims that they put a time limit in the license, and we know that they hid a technical enforcement mechanism in it. But what matters is the contract that they signed for the development contract that they undertook. It could be that ORQA’s lawyers really screwed up, but in every contract-for-code I have ever encountered (either directly or through friends), the copyright of the written code ends up belonging to the company hiring the contractor, not the contractor. Given the way the contractor handled the “license violation”, they’ve already put themselves in the unethical behavior bin and so I don’t trust them unless they demonstrate that the contracts they agreed to left the copyright with the contractor, and included a time limit. The latter especially would be “time to fire our law firm” moment for ORQA, if it’s actually what has happened.
- nailer 3y ago
  > Given the way the contractor handled the “license violation” This presupposes the entity that created the code was hired as a contractor, rather than a company with intellectual property to license.
  - newaccount74 3y ago
    It doesn't really matter, as long as the contract doesn't explicitly warn about the bricking.