MS2/Extra 3.2.0 alpha / license discussion

[gslender]

Jean,

I see MS2/Extra has taken the unfavourable option of now fully restricting any 3rd party development without MS2/Extra first granting permission.

An excerpt taken from the License-source.txt file included in the 3.2.0 alpha zip.

Permission is required from the copyright holders before modified code may
be distributed. The code name and copyright strings presented to the tuning
software title bar must be agreed with the original copyright holders before
a derivative is released. The copyright holders reserve the right to prohibit
development and distribution of any code that is deemed inappropriate
for any reason.

There are many other restrictive components of the agreement, and I'm unsure of their intention and whether they even existed prior in releases before 3.2.0 - from a quick scan none of these restrictions existed prior, and so this release seems to be locking down on the freedom that existed in prior releases of MS2.

Would someone from the MS2/Extra team care to comment on this? Does the community appreciate what is happening here in terms of what you've now lost and what MS2/Extra are now locking down on. The attraction of an open/community driven ECU is essentially mostly gone.

G

[muythaibxr]

Jean,

The attraction of an open/community driven ECU is essentially mostly gone.

G

We disagree for many reasons, here are a couple:

1) We're still making our source available for personal modification. We've had problems with people forking off other code revisions and not changing the version strings, which leads to confusion about what is actually supported by which code. We don't necessarily want the code revisions to stop, we just want to stop the confusion between our "Official" revisions and the modified code. We want the version strings to be run by us first so that we can make sure there won't be any confusion.

2) Most of the restrictions that seem new are things we originally loosely enforced (including the one you specifically mentioned) but weren't called out.

Our intention here was mainly to put all the things we were enforcing in one place and make them clear.

Ken

[racingmini_mtl]

One additional thing that should be mentioned is that the MS2/Extra code (and all other MegaSquirt-related code) has always been copyrighted material. That means that no one becomes the owner of the code, in total or in part, because they modified it.

The goal is not to keep people from developing code but we want to be able to keep track of what is happening with the code and who is doing what. And since this forum is the place to go when support is needed and where the developers are always going to be, it is normal that distribution of modified code be done here. This has also the advantage that the whole community can benefit from it.

So, as Ken mentioned, the goal is to make clear what was loosely enforced but also to make clear that this is copyrighted material and while you can pretty much do what you want for your own personal use, there are some reasonable limits when you want to distribute the code.

And I don't see why you assume that this will automatically mean that any new development will be stopped. It is just asking to tell us before you distribute it. If this stops people from wanting to do anything with the code then so be it but again, this is not the intent.

Jean

[Greg G]

OK I see the point of the devs wanting to make sure derivative code is properly labeled as such. But this AC idle up code, for example was deemed impossible to implement in MS2...and yet here it is. And in terms of everyday 'driveability/livability', the impact is immense. I would have thought this would have immediately merited some consideration for 3.2.0.

The mario code also gave some great improvements, and was integrated in some form into the present code without much ado about it.

With the focus being on MS3, and MS2/Extra nearing the practical end of its development, why not encourage folks who want to help out in improving MS2/Extra? It can and does trickle upwards as well. I think this is mostly a communication issue, and if so, I hope we can resolve it.

I am not a coder or anything like it. Just an interested/concerned end user. Peace!

[muythaibxr]

OK I see the point of the devs wanting to make sure derivative code is properly labeled as such. But this AC idle up code, for example was deemed impossible to implement in MS2...and yet here it is. And in terms of everyday 'driveability/livability', the impact is immense. I would have thought this would have immediately merited some consideration for 3.2.0.

Nobody said it is impossible. We mainly just didn't feel like multiplexing yet another function onto an already limited set of pins when we have made adding I/O functions so much easier on ms3 (I did this initially to make it so adding AC idleup in ms3 was very simple).

The mario code also gave some great improvements, and was integrated in some form into the present code without much ado about it.

Only one tiny part of what he did was integrated. I did not integrate most of the things he did as I feel most of them are attainable with proper tuning of the current code. I am going to be completely rewriting all of the idle code in MS3 anyway, and I will likely backport those changes if they will fit.

With the focus being on MS3, and MS2/Extra nearing the practical end of its development, why not encourage folks who want to help out in improving MS2/Extra? It can and does trickle upwards as well. I think this is mostly a communication issue, and if so, I hope we can resolve it.

There must be a communication issue. It appears that what Jean and I said was not read. Nothing in our license says people can't contribute ideas/code, and we have done nothing to stop it.

Ken

[Greg G]

Well OK then!

Let's all agree to communicate

[Black99rt]

Lets make it clear- This means nobody can send anyone else an .s19 that is not official or officially recognized by the copywrite holders? Correct? This is going to stifle alpha development testing for third party contributors.

What about diff or patch files?

[jsmcortina]

There are many other restrictive components of the agreement, and I'm unsure of their intention and whether they even existed prior in releases before 3.2.0 - from a quick scan none of these restrictions existed prior, and so this release seems to be locking down on the freedom that existed in prior releases of MS2.

Perhaps you misunderstand copyright. These rights are automatically granted as part of copyright. It is OUR work and always has been.

However, as Jean notes, perhaps it has not been clear in the past. That's why we chose to write up the license files to make it easier to understand.

For example, a few years back Patrick from Germany tried to put out a derivative release under GPL, which was not acceptable as it broke the copyright terms. Unfortunately he would not agree with the copyright on the code and subsequently went off in his own direction.

We want to ensure that our work is recognised as ours and not hijacked by anyone as theirs and taken in a direction we don't agree with.

For small derivatives or tweaks we'll almost certainly permit the release.

James

[gslender]

I'm unsure what legal advice or background the MS/Extra team has, but your *NEW* licesnse terms will stiffle development.

With the background I have in law, I would say that you have essentially limited distribution - and this is totally different to copyright law. There are separate and very different laws regarding distribution (contract law) vs copyright (which is a law in itself).

If you publish your works (eg. MS2 3.1.4) freely for people to download and use, with all the source code etc (and you have) and then you don't include a distribution license (and you didn't) then copyright law does not come into play in terms of distribution. As long as I continue to distribute your works as you (and I have) I can add/remove whatever I like and not come into the scope of breaking any copyright law. You may not like this, but this is the facts and is similar across the globe where each country has implemented copyright law. This is why the Open Source software movement is so complex and deep - you've failed to look into this thoroughly and my assessment was that you essentially didn't care how the works were distributed and how derivatives were constructed.

What you have done in 3.2.0 is ADD a brand new licesnse that restricts distribution of any type of derivative works without permission, and so THIS WILL stifle development as per Black99rt's quote...

Lets make it clear- This means nobody can send anyone else an .s19 that is not official or officially recognized by the copywrite holders? Correct? This is going to stifle alpha development testing for third party contributors.

If the attempt here is to "reduce confusion over different works" as you say, then a simple communication explaining what you want users to do would be simple and less restrictive for the Megasquirt community. One of the overwhelming benefits to me for coming to Megasquirt was the appearance of open source code and community works - this seems it has now changed.

Hard to predict what long term effects this move will have, but other similar communities collapse fairly quickly after this type of action, and as we all know history tends to repeat. One could probably plough ahead and do whatever they like, and ignore these new license terms - you'll no doubt have a very hard time starting any real legal effort to restrict their actions - the costs alone with be prohibitive on a global scale.

Makes you wonder what thinking went into this move?

Interesting times indeed.

G

[gslender]

Oh, and one aspect I failed to include - most of the derivatives works would be allowed under copyright law due to fair use.

http://sloanconsortium.org/node/228146

G

[jagdude]

Hey guys,
Let's try to keep the temperature of the conversation low. I imagine (and that is all I can do) that the purpose of the changes introduced by the devs is an effort to eliminate confusion and maintain the integrity of the software. As an example of confusion, not being an every day reader of this specific forum, I found it very confusing to read all the various threads about what turned out to be derivative versions of the code. Guys were having issues that I had never seen etc. etc. At one stage, I read through several pages of one thread before I realized that it was for a derivative function/version that I would probably never use.

The problem that I believe the guys are trying to head off is the same one that has plagued the software industry for decades. What starts out as a fairly decent system ultimately fails because the developers allowed way too many unique versions of the system to be developed and consequently when it came time for a new release the scale of changing/upgrading hundreds of versions caused the software companies to collapse. Either that or the effort to upgrade was going to take so long that the customers got tired waiting and switched to an alternative system that had all the latest bells and whistles. It used to be that the cycle from widespread adoption to collapse took around 15 years. If nothing else, we should all applaud efforts to prevent this type of a future for MS.

The other matter is the issue of the time, effort and energy invested in the standard system by the devs. GSlender, let's take your specific modification for example. You focused on the AC idle up problem and, it seems, have beaten it into submission. The devs, on the other hand are already dealing with user-issues related to several versions of the code, on three different hardware sets (Squirt, MS2 and MS3) that are running on a list of cars that spans a huge chunk of the automotive world. Overall their level of response to the forums is really amazing. Remember that all of this effort takes place relatively smoothly thanks to people separated by multiple time zones, geography and a large ocean.

Personally, I'm willing to cut them some slack.

Jim

[gslender]

Ok, I appreciate the need to keep calm

I've always been happy to contribute any and all mods for free. I'm not chasing any recognition or compensation.

I'd like to make the offer of posting a 3.2.0 version of my latest mods and changes, including the entire source etc.

In return, I'm hoping these features will find its way into the main release.

If one of the team can contact me (privately would probably be best) regarding the signature and any other conditions.

Let's see where this takes us.

G

[jsmcortina]

then copyright law does not come into play in terms of distribution.

Not so. Copyright is automatic.
The point about distributing the source is not much different to a book - every single word is presented there that could enable you to replicate the works in full, but copyright law prohibits that.

This is why the Open Source software movement is so complex and deep

Megasquirt is not "Open Source" and never has been. This was already stated as a reminder in the COPYRIGHT.txt shipped with earlier releases.

I will contact you directly as requested too.

James

[gslender]

Not so. Copyright is automatic.
The point about distributing the source is not much different to a book - every single word is presented there that could enable you to replicate the works in full, but copyright law prohibits that.

Copyright is automatic, but that isn't my point. When you freely publish works as you've done, you can't retrospectively control distribution unless you included a license saying what you wanted. A distribution license is completely different to copyright, and copyright law does not seek to control or limit distribution.

In addition, as you've not stated an prior requirements, under fair use, I'd be freely able to re-distribute your works, create derivatives and do so as there is no loss or harm to your existing brand - as long as I clearly outline my works are different and derived from the freely distributable works that remain copyright.

I'm not all that sure you fully understand this complex part of law - my reference to the Open Source movement was more about the relative complexity that they have had to deal with - and this isn't any different in terms of how to freely publish works (distribution) keep within copyright (and fair use) and still control derivatives to the extent you wish.

...end of the day, I'm gonna agree to disagree and move on.

I'll take up your offer and await your contact as I have some code that I'd like to make freely available - all of it in fact. Code that certain members find useful, better than what is offered and available for MS2 now. If you are genuine about your claims and purpose for the above licenses changes, then this discussion won't matter.

I will contact you directly as requested too.

Cool. As I've previously posted above, I'm happy to comply with whatever the MSextra team wish, but so far the discussion hasn't gone that way.

G

[GintsK]

It would be nice if gslender or others could do modifications in MS2 code legally. Code is not perfect or even close to that in some branches. But main devs work go to MS3 where insane amount of coding work await. Shame if MS2 stays retired.
Please, keep discuss public as possible. We should knew what is behind the destiny of our beloved MS2-E!

sincerely
Gints

[jsmcortina]

It would be nice if gslender or others could do modifications in MS2 code legally.

Who says they won't be able to?

James

[racingmini_mtl]

... there is no loss or harm to your existing brand ...

What has been put in the license is so that we decide on this instead of letting others decide for themselves or observing after the fact.

Jean

[pmbrunelle]

The developers don't owe anyone anything, if you don't like the deal with 3.2.0, then don't use it, it's as simple as that. Funny how people have a sense of entitlement.

Anyway, 3.1.4 is a rather fine firmware the way it is. I use it as the basis for my modified code, which I'll certainly pass onto my friend with the same car as me, should he get a MegaSquirt.

[juansh2385]

3.1.4 have a bug in the seq code that have been addressed in 3.2 so I do not think that you should distribute among your friends a potentially harmfull code. The bug required mayor changes to the point that the main sequential code was rewritten completely.

Any way I think is important to clarify something than all the dev have been saying and I think very few people have understood. The licence that was reminded during the last alpha code 3.2 also applies to ALL the ms extra code. They just clarify a couple points that were apparently not clear before.

As you all know the dev have not remove the previous mod codes, but as different derivates of the code have been released the felt the need to remember the important point in the licence agrement and asked for the benefit of all the ms community that the can review the code first to be sure that everything is in order before a release. I know that the process is going to be slower but I do not see any harm in what they are asking.

I think that gslender already understand this probably he is working in applying his changes to the new code and follow the request of the dev before releasing them, If not it is safe to said that He can start to work in the new code then when the mod are ready present the mode code to the dev and await for approval before releasing it.

Juan

[tjts1]

The license doesn't seem unreasonable. If you added a couple of sentences about the goal of the license as well as who to contact if you want to modify and distribute your own version of the code it would avoid any confusion in the future.