DM42 is now open-source!

[Massimo Gnerucci]

(04-20-2018 09:51 PM)BarryMead Wrote:  but I would prefer to have a more FOURTHCOMING estimate of how long that wait will be.

Just wait a little more...

[rprosperi]

(04-20-2018 09:51 PM)BarryMead Wrote:  In the April 6th announcement that the source code would be released Michael Steinmann said:

Michael Steinmann Wrote:In the next few days, we will be releasing the full source code to be able to build your own DM42 firmware. All components of DM42 will be open-sourced. We think that this is the right thing to do and hopefully with the help from community, we can accelerate the development of DM42's software on Github.

Full source code will be available at: http://github.com/swissmicros/DM42.

Personally, I would say that "few days" means 3 to 8 days. It has already been two full weeks and the github page still shows the 404 not found message. I think it is reasonable to request that Swiss Micros update their announcement if additional delays are expected. I don't mind patiently waiting, but I would prefer to have a more FOURTHCOMING estimate of how long that wait will be. After all they didn't say "few weeks" they said "few days".

Why not post topics such as this on the SwissMicros forum, which we know Michael monitors? You're more likely to get an answer, no one can say the question wasn't seen, and the discussion will hopefully not escalate. It's a very reasonable question IMHO, I was hoping for some status update too; but also IMHO, asking it late on a Friday, when Europe is already close to midnight, is bad timing; hopefully folks can wait until next week for a reply to Barry's question without feeling a need to pile-on.

[BarryMead]

(04-20-2018 11:02 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  Why not post topics such as this on the SwissMicros forum, which we know Michael monitors? You're more likely to get an answer, no one can say the question wasn't seen, and the discussion will hopefully not escalate. It's a very reasonable question IMHO, I was hoping for some status update too; but also IMHO, asking it late on a Friday, when Europe is already close to midnight, is bad timing; hopefully folks can wait until next week for a reply to Barry's question without feeling a need to pile-on.

Bob: I apologize for the "Bad Timing". I know in my heart that this was not intentional. As a retired person I forget to think about weekends differently than weekdays. Now that you mention timing, I can see why it has bad optics. I simply looked at my calendar, and noticed that it was two weeks since the announcement, and decided to post the question. I don't have a login/account on the swiss micros forum, but before posting this question here, I did send an email version of this same question directly to Michael Steinmann so he would know where I stand.

[rprosperi]

(04-20-2018 11:36 PM)BarryMead Wrote:  Bob: You are absolutely right about "Bad Timing". I know in my heart that this was not intentional, but I can see why it has bad optics. I looked at my calendar, and noticed that it was two weeks since the announcement, and decided to post the question. Hours before posting this question here, I sent an email version of this same question directly to Michael Steinmann so he would have the chance to respond. So far I haven't heard back.

I get it; I did not mean to imply it was deliberate, hope it didn't seem that way, it's just unfortunate timing. It's easy to not always recall that members here circle the globe and someone is always coming as we're going, and vice-versa (this means you Pauli and Tony).

I contemplated emailing Michael this week to suggest posting an update, but ultimately didn't do so as not sure it was appropriate; seeing the timeline though, I should have.

That said, I know it's a pretty big task to totally refactor the DM42 s/w design to isolate the various code contributions as required by the conflicting licenses, so it's not unreasonable that it's still going on. But an update, even it's just to say that it's taking longer than anticipated, would be welcome all around.

It's likely (IMHO, but you embedded developer guys would know better) that the process of revising the s/w architecture to keep the code segments isolated will introduce new bugs and/or stability issues into the DM42. The community during the Beta phase (and right up to today) was very active and spent much time testing and exploring to find bugs (and suggest improvements which led to many of the DM42's innovations). The good news about the coming release is there are many more 'testers' now, and lot's of proven DM42 programs that exploit the DM42 extensions, so issues should be found and reported quickly.

I understand there are several folks that are holding off ordering a DM42 until it is compliant with the GPL (and other) License requirements, and respect that. I just hope that once the DM42 is aligned, these same folks order them quickly to join in with the fun (ok, and testing too).

[BarryMead]

(04-21-2018 01:31 AM)rprosperi Wrote:  That said, I know it's a pretty big task to totally refactor the DM42 s/w design to isolate the various code contributions as required by the conflicting licenses, so it's not unreasonable that it's still going on. But an update, even it's just to say that it's taking longer than anticipated, would be welcome all around.

I always thought the "few days" estimate was too optimistic considering the task at hand. What I am hoping is that Swiss Micros can give us a more realistic prediction as to when the source will actually be released.

[moonbeam]

(04-21-2018 01:43 AM)BarryMead Wrote:  I always thought the "few days" estimate was too optimistic considering the task at hand. What I am hoping is that Swiss Micros can give us a more realistic prediction as to when the source will actually be released.

Well, it's a question of methodology.

I would start with a list of third-party software used, draw a dependency graph, attach licensing labels. It'll be readily apparent which license combinations need to be assessed and which parts are ready for immediate release.

1.) Boot code (if applicable) will not depend on anything and a source release depends on the pertinent licensing terms. If there is source, as opposed to some binary blobs.

2.) FreeRTOS is MIT-licensed. No problem.

3.) Anything from ST Microelectronics depends on how it's used. If linked against/called from FreeRTOS, no problem.

4.) Free42 (including SwissMicros derived shell) falls under the GPL.

5.) ???

I don't believe that sorting out the licensing issues is that difficult, but I'm making assumptions about how the firmware is structured.

A question that comes to mind is why SwissMicros hasn't done a partial release. I don't see a good reason why they're not publishing what they can (and must) right now and fill in the blanks in a reasonable amount of time.

Perhaps worse than the legal issues is the lack of communication.

[Manolo Sobrino]

I don't think going over the same issues in this forum helps to solve this problem, which concerns nobody else but Thomas and SwissMicros. No news is good news, this is a technical hurdle (or a series of them) and possibly there are a few compromises that need to be discussed and agreed upon among all interested parties (you know, the actual interested parties) in order to keep this product alive.

But if you insist... well, I'd love to see your proof of concept on how to load executables in FreeRTOS, and maybe an offer to develop an alternative GPL USB stack for this board. That would be more interesting than another round of assumptions about what can/should be done, and it also might give some pause.

[BarryMead]

(04-21-2018 06:52 PM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  I don't think going over the same issues in this forum helps to solve this problem, which concerns nobody else but Thomas and SwissMicros. No news is good news, this is a technical hurdle (or a series of them) and possibly there are a few compromises that need to be discussed and agreed upon among all interested parties (you know, the actual interested parties) in order to keep this product alive.

I think this issue does affect the whole open source community. The purpose of the GPL licence is that the "Public" be given access to the source. We are "Excited" and "Enthusiastic" about the development of these products, because we can see that the user contributed calculator community as a whole will greatly benefit from both the Swiss Micros hardware (DM42) and the open source software (Free42). Like kids asking their parents for hints about what's in their Christmas Present packages we are anxiously awaiting news of progress toward this important achievement. I look forward to the day when I can buy a DM42 with full source code so that it can be expanded upon and improved by all members of the community. When people get "Excited" and "Enthused" it is only natural that they "Talk" about it in forums such as this. Also we are not going over the "same" issue, we are asking for an "update" on the source code release announcement. According to the original announcement the source code release is overdue, so we think it is reasonable to request that Swiss Micros amend the original announcement to include a more realistic source code release timeframe.

[moonbeam]

(04-21-2018 06:52 PM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  I don't think going over the same issues in this forum helps to solve this problem, which concerns nobody else but Thomas and SwissMicros. No news is good news, this is a technical hurdle (or a series of them) and possibly there are a few compromises that need to be discussed and agreed upon among all interested parties (you know, the actual interested parties) in order to keep this product alive.

These "same issues" are extant until such time as SwissMicros delivers what they promised. They concern not just Thomas and SwissMicros, but DM42 users in particular and the broader community in general. No news is definitely NOT good news; absent any news, attributing the delay on technical issue is speculative.

Quote:But if you insist... well, I'd love to see your proof of concept on how to load executables in FreeRTOS, and maybe an offer to develop an alternative GPL USB stack for this board. That would be more interesting than another round of assumptions about what can/should be done, and it also might give some pause.

I don't recall using the words "loading an executable into FreeRTOS" (at least not up-thread), but FreeRTOS is a kernel with a documented API. A FreeRTOS executable would be an application written to that API, similar to applications written to other OS kernels. No proof of concept required on my part, sample projects can be found in the documentation and distribution.

The point of making assumptions is to understand what the holdup might be, to play with scenarios. If SwissMicros is in need of a GPL USB library, I have to respectfully decline to assist; I would find it an interesting project under different circumstances.

[Manolo Sobrino]

(04-21-2018 09:20 PM)moonbeam Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 06:52 PM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  I don't think going over the same issues in this forum helps to solve this problem, which concerns nobody else but Thomas and SwissMicros. No news is good news, this is a technical hurdle (or a series of them) and possibly there are a few compromises that need to be discussed and agreed upon among all interested parties (you know, the actual interested parties) in order to keep this product alive.

These "same issues" are extant until such time as SwissMicros delivers what they promised. They concern not just Thomas and SwissMicros, but DM42 users in particular and the broader community in general. No news is definitely NOT good news; absent any news, attributing the delay on technical issue is speculative.

Of course it's speculative, yet it's the sort of speculation I do, which is you don't assume malice unless there's evidence of malice. It's a boring class of speculation, but I'm not an exciting person.

What I've learnt about GPL (and more) with all this is that there's something wrong with whatever that allows people that haven't written a single line of code to feel entitled to anything about that code. If SM can't pull this off -as you feel like they should- and they and Thomas strike a deal that is OK for them, it should be OK for everybody else. If that happens and you don't like your DM42 then... well, SM should issue an RMA for it and everybody's happy.

(04-21-2018 09:20 PM)moonbeam Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 06:52 PM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  But if you insist... well, I'd love to see your proof of concept on how to load executables in FreeRTOS, and maybe an offer to develop an alternative GPL USB stack for this board. That would be more interesting than another round of assumptions about what can/should be done, and it also might give some pause.

I don't recall using the words "loading an executable into FreeRTOS" (at least not up-thread), but FreeRTOS is a kernel with a documented API. A FreeRTOS executable would be an application written to that API, similar to applications written to other OS kernels. No proof of concept required on my part, sample projects can be found in the documentation and distribution.

The point of making assumptions is to understand what the holdup might be, to play with scenarios. If SwissMicros is in need of a GPL USB library, I have to respectfully decline to assist; I would find it an interesting project under different circumstances.

Yep, it's a kernel... statically linked to your application, unless you have the resources to make something like the Pebble. So you get a single blob with everything (and then the STM license kicks in), or lots of developers/time/money to achieve something really special, or you just have to start over with a different OS, which maybe means a proprietary one this time. But it never occurred to you that what you're asking for here to SwissMicros could mean "please kill this product or else".

Seriously guys, there are better things to do than stirring the pot, let them solve this. If Thomas is not happy with the outcome I'm sure he'll let us know in due time.

[Ángel Martin]

(04-22-2018 12:15 AM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  Seriously guys, there are better things to do than stirring the pot, let them solve this. If Thomas is not happy with the outcome I'm sure he'll let us know in due time.

Fully agree with this summary line. I for one would very much like seeing posts on what folks do with the 42DM (or any other machine) than byzantine discussions (no offense meant, just a way to express it).

[BarryMead]

(04-22-2018 12:15 AM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  Seriously guys, there are better things to do than stirring the pot, let them solve this. If Thomas is not happy with the outcome I'm sure he'll let us know in due time.

All of your comments seem to suggest that only Thomas and Michael are interested in this project and that is simply not true. The "P" in "GPL" stands for "Public" and we have a right to be interested in the outcome. Simply suggesting that we shut up and go away will not change the fact that the "Public" was short changed when the DM42 was shipped without source code, and that has yet to be rectified. Since the "few days" time-frame has already come and gone, there are those who would like to know when the source will actually be released. Any kind of communication is better than silence. What has been done? What is left to do? Are there any issues that need license accommodation? Have you had any discussions with Thomas Okken? Is there anything that the community can contribute to help? My goal is to OPEN not CLOSE DOWN the lines of communication. I believe that problems are solved more rapidly and effectively when interested parties COMMUNICATE.

[d b]

(04-22-2018 12:15 AM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  .......... let them solve this.......

Thank you Manolo. I like that.
I'm patiently looking forward to my DM42 when everything is sorted.

[Thomas Okken]

(04-22-2018 05:19 AM)BarryMead Wrote:  All of your comments seem to suggest that only Thomas and Michael are interested in this project and that is simply not true. The "P" in "GPL" stands for "Public" and we have a right to be interested in the outcome.

Indeed. While I understand that people don't want a rehash of the discussion that already took place, nor a repeat of all the bad temper and name-calling that occurred, it is not correct to say that only Michael Steinmann and I are interested parties, and that everyone else must just quietly wait to see what happens next.

Just to restate the facts: the way the DM42 was sold, and continues to be sold, without making available the source code that buyers would need to build and install their own custom firmware images, is in violation of the terms of the GPL, under which SwissMicros obtained the Free42 source code. That affects not just me, it affects anyone who purchased a DM42 and wants to build their own firmware, and until this situation is fixed, the GPL violation continues, regardless of my own feelings about the issue.

[Massimo Gnerucci]

Official update by Michael:

Quote:We're working on an update which will be up on https://www.swissmicros.com/License_Statement.php in a few hours ...

[Massimo Gnerucci]

And here it is:

Quote:License Statement Update - 22th of April 2018
Dear SwissMicros customers,

Thank you for your support as we go through the source code compliance activities. On April 6 2018, we released a statement saying that we will ensure our users can compile modified Free42 source code into a custom DM42 firmware version. We have been occupied with analyzing a vast labyrinth of DM42 source code with multiple licensing terms which are difficult to coagulate. We underestimated the time required to anatomize the source code — i.e, to satisfy compliance from all parties and ensure accurate, truthful and fair licensing terms.

We appreciate your patience and you can expect an update from us within 3-4 weeks due to upcoming travel schedule. Michael Steinmann will be on a business trip from April 25 to May 2nd followed by a vacation until May 14 during which time we will not be shipping orders.

Sincerely,
SwissMicros Team

[d b]

That's fine for me. This copyright stuff will be straightened out and I'll get my 42 in a month. I better clear stuff off the to do list so there'll be time to play with it. Personally, I'll never need the full documentation but the brightest among us will and we'll all get the benefit.. So I'm glad it 'll be there.

[Manolo Sobrino]

(04-22-2018 10:59 AM)Thomas Okken Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 05:19 AM)BarryMead Wrote:  All of your comments seem to suggest that only Thomas and Michael are interested in this project and that is simply not true. The "P" in "GPL" stands for "Public" and we have a right to be interested in the outcome.

Indeed. While I understand that people don't want a rehash of the discussion that already took place, nor a repeat of all the bad temper and name-calling that occurred, it is not correct to say that only Michael Steinmann and I are interested parties, and that everyone else must just quietly wait to see what happens next.

Just to restate the facts: the way the DM42 was sold, and continues to be sold, without making available the source code that buyers would need to build and install their own custom firmware images, is in violation of the terms of the GPL, under which SwissMicros obtained the Free42 source code. That affects not just me, it affects anyone who purchased a DM42 and wants to build their own firmware, and until this situation is fixed, the GPL violation continues, regardless of my own feelings about the issue.

Thomas, you are the copyright holder and as such you have the legal standing to sue. Users/customers don't. Sadly these things come to litigation, which I don't think was the point of GPL but here we are.

Unless you consider the possibility of licensing Free42 under LGPL (or lesser) for them, well I don't think I'll be able to get one of these without paying a premium in ebay. That might make some people happy, which again I don't think was the point of GPL.

Clearly these guys have to call you ASAP. I hope they did.

[Thomas Okken]

(04-22-2018 04:04 PM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  Thomas, you are the copyright holder and as such you have the legal standing to sue. Users/customers don't. Sadly these things come to litigation, which I don't think was the point of GPL but here we are.

The customers have rights, that's literally the whole point of the GPL! Have you ever actually read that document?

[Manolo Sobrino]

(04-22-2018 05:40 PM)Thomas Okken Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 04:04 PM)Manolo Sobrino Wrote:  Thomas, you are the copyright holder and as such you have the legal standing to sue. Users/customers don't. Sadly these things come to litigation, which I don't think was the point of GPL but here we are.

The customers have rights, that's literally the whole point of the GPL! Have you ever actually read that document?

Yes I have.

And how do you enforce those rights? You have to think about this, because licenses don't exist in a vacuum. It's you who issued the software under that license, and the breach of contract is with you.

That's pretty much it. I just hope that this situation ends in the best possible way, what's the point otherwise?