Sad Tale of Greed and Aspiration.

On Aug 25, 4:35*am, brian whatcott 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

On Aug 26, 9:00*am, jb92563 wrote:
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.

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.

It's a good thing that neither the entry qualifications nor the
restrictions on feedback are enforced. It they were the pool of
useful ideas would have been much reduced.

Andy (GY)

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, 4:41*am, Michael Jaworski
wrote:

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

Michael -

As an IT professional I understand your stance on this. Were XCSoar a
commercial product or the results of a dedicated team that was still
working on it, I would have some of those same feelings. However:

1) Both products are free. No one is losing money or being driven out
of business.
2) Most of the team that originally put together XCSoar is, as I
undertand it, no longer involved in the product. The 1 or 2 new
people that have taken control of XCSoar did not actually develop it
AFAIK. If the original developers want to be upset then I can
understand - but that's not the same thing as the current developer
being upset. AND I would point out to the original developers that
their hard work is still completely available as XCSoar or the XCSoar
source. Also: remember that the LK8000 developer WAS one of the
XCSoar authors/contributors - not a black knight who swooped in from
nowhere and "stole" the code.
3) LK8000 is not going to be a commercial product. Heck, XCSoar was
much closer to being a commercial product in the first place, via the
Triadis flight computer. Given what's already freely available, I
don't see a commercially-viable path for LK8000 in any case.

Look, we can talk in abstracts and ideals; but there's a need to be
pragmatic and realistic about the situation. We're dealing with
personalities and egos that created this mess; and both sides have
chosen to try to exclude the other party, while still making the
results of their work available to the public for free (the LK8000
developer refuses to even accept donations to cover website costs).

Is there a violation of the GPL going on? Possibly. Is the "spirit"
of the GPL being violated? Yes. But is it materially harming
anyone? That's a much tougher question to answer... If I knew it
*was* harming someone, I wouldn't use it; but I don't see how its
causing harm at this point. I'm not happy about the situation, but I
don't see a "perfect" solution at this point. The LK8000 developer
has claimed that the source-code will be made available at a future
date when the software is publicly distributed. Personally I believe
that the best thing for me to do is to apply gentle pressure and
persuasion, to try to encourage this to come true sooner rather than
later.

The practical reality is this: We don't have to like it; but asking
people to stop using a superior product is just not going to happen -
not when its free and already "in the wild".

--Noel

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:43:05 -0700, noel.wade wrote:

Is there a violation of the GPL going on? Possibly. Is the "spirit" of
the GPL being violated? Yes. But is it materially harming anyone?
That's a much tougher question to answer... If I knew it *was* harming
someone, I wouldn't use it; but I don't see how its causing harm at this
point. I'm not happy about the situation, but I don't see a "perfect"
solution at this point. The LK8000 developer has claimed that the
source-code will be made available at a future date when the software is
publicly distributed. Personally I believe that the best thing for me
to do is to apply gentle pressure and persuasion, to try to encourage
this to come true sooner rather than later.

So let me help apply some gentle pressure...

rant

There is a HUGE violation of the GPL going on here.

1000's of hours were spent writing the original XCSOAR code. The
developers who did it, as well as all of those who helped with testing,
filing bugs, translating, documentation etc did it for no reward at all.

The only rights they have reserved over their work, is that the source
code of any software developed from their work should be made available
to them and to anybody else who feels motivated to continue with the
work. This is the same motivation that has resulted in entire operating
systems and many thousands of applications being written under GPL
copyrights.

It is exactly this right which is being withheld. It is not only a theft
of the intellectual property of the original XCSOAR authors, but it is
also an insult to 10's of thousands of programmers and developers who
have contributed to GPL copyrighted work over the decades.

The rules are simple. You cannot distribute a "testing beta" derivative
of a GPL copyright work unless you distribute the source code of that
work as well. At the same time, not at some date in the future.

The practical reality is this: We don't have to like it; but asking
people to stop using a superior product is just not going to happen -
not when its free and already "in the wild".

If this is your attitude, then you might as well distribute hacked copies
of Winpilot, CU Mobile, and Pocket Strepla, underhand to other readers of
this newsgroup.

But this is worse. Perhaps the gliding equivalent of a programmer who
violates a GPL copyright is a pilot who falsifies their documentation in
order to earn a badge that they never flew. It does not hurt anybody, so
what is the harm in that?

/rant

Ian

PS: Just publish the code and all will be forgiven!