ms3

Discuss MegaSquirt, VEMS and other non-free hardware and software here.
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: ms3

Post by Fred »

According to diyautotune's facebook profile, MS3 is released. No source code, yet, though.

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
Costa
Banned!
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:57 am
Location: Sydney, NSW, AU

Re: ms3

Post by Costa »

previously: ca7
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: ms3

Post by Fred »

Wow, nail in the coffin, perhaps? Thank you very much for the link. I've saved copies of it, page one, and two, at 37 posts, just in case an editor goes a bit nuts on it...

Pretty sad, really. Someone should post something about the thousands of hours of work others have put into the modified GCC that they are using and suggest they share that.

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
User avatar
SleepyKeys
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: ms3

Post by SleepyKeys »

1. I'm glad to see they closed it. That presents a big opportunity for FreeEMS.

2. Hording any GCC work is an atrocity. Having closed it they should have gone to CodeWarrior IMO it would have been more cost effective for them to do so.

3. What bugs me most is the fact that they say GCC patches aren't ready to others on the freescale message boards when in fact they are using it to generate code for MS3. If its useable at all you should release something IMO.
You snooze, you lose!
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: ms3

Post by Fred »

1 Disagree. Agree.
2 Agree. Unsure.
3 Agree. Agree.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: ms3

Post by Fred »

In relation to the link by ca7, this will be of interest :

http://www.msextra.com/doc/ms3/files/beta/LICENSE.txt

I saved a copy, if it ever disappears/changes. (just let me know to rehost/paste)

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
User avatar
EssEss
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:23 am
Location: Dayton, OH

Re: ms3

Post by EssEss »

so what does this mean exactly with respect to using a patched gcc ?

they can't distribute generated binaries from the patched gcc without releasing the patched gcc itself that generated that binary/.s19 ?
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: ms3

Post by Fred »

No, not at all. They can't release GCC binaries without releasing GCC source. Releasing s19 files generated with a GPL tool is 100% A OK. Much the same as emailing a private love letter to a girlfriend generated with Open Office is 100% A OK too :-)

I just banged it up to finalise the above discussion about source being or not being released. It's good that ms3 finally has a license, I hope they make it more obvious somehow so people know what they are in for.

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
User avatar
SleepyKeys
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: ms3

Post by SleepyKeys »

They need to fix their first paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaSquirt

The hardware is open in that the schematics are available for troubleshooting and educational purposes....................
You snooze, you lose!
MotoFab
1N4001 - Signed up
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 1:23 am
Location: Long Beach CA

Re: ms3

Post by MotoFab »

seank wrote:They need to fix their first paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaSquirt

The hardware is open in that the schematics are available for troubleshooting and educational purposes....
From Wikipedia:
The software for the platform is open for modification (for use on Bowling and Grippo hardware only). The hardware provides for only fuel, ignition and idle air control in most cases, keeping the cost low (though there are user configurable outputs in most cases for other functions). The hardware is open in that the schematics are available for troubleshooting and educational purposes, but not for copying.

I always get a kick out of that. Like if you connect resistors capacitors and transistors to a microcontroller you are infringing on some right to protection. As if when you drive a transistor with an output pin you are violating a copyright. I mean, if that were true that'd be one thing. But it's mainly non-substantive on it's face. And of course I am certainly not talking about making a plain duplicate.

About the software, if it's offered without cost, then there's no 'Consideration' exchanged. If there's no Consideration, there's no contract. Any ability to limit the use of something after it changes hands must be based on a contract. For example, if you paid 10 cents in Consideration of the software, part of the purchase agreement might be a use limitation. Note: The use limitation may not include limitations on personal use, for you cannot limit a person's freedom of personal use of anything. That would not be legal, and all contracts must be legal.

How about the 'future sale' of something. Can a one-sided limitation be placed on the selling of something that someone has paid consideration for? No, not for the most part. You own it, you can sell it. Now, separate from the 'purchase agreement', the original seller can strike a 'future sale agreement' with the original purchaser (which may be written on the same piece of paper). The future sale agreement, itself another contract, can seek to limit the future disposition of the object. And if the purchaser agrees, the seller must pay the buyer some consideration. Often this type of consideration is in the form of a discounted purchase price.

None of this is unduly critical, it's Common Law and has been around for many hundreds of years.

Here's another Common Law. Does anyone making a profit have a right to protect their livelihood using all legal means? Of course. I think the folks at MS should be more vigorous in protecting the rights they do have. And take more actions to establish rights they currently do not have.

- Jim
Post Reply