Topic: Kano vs Bitsyncom - page 9. (Read 15357 times)

Let me quote their own announcement:


Yes, they shipped binaries 20 days ago, and have yet to release the source code for it. That is in clear violation of the license.


Furthermore, they are well aware that they are in violation of the license, yet they are chosing not to comply.

What is the link to his YouTube account?

An "open platform" is not one where you grudgingly comply with the GPL and take weeks and weeks to release source after shipping.

Here's a product line which is truly open:

https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXino/

They have schematics and sources up for products that haven't even been released yet.

From what I understand you actually have to have a binary...  do you know anybody who has the binary?  Perhaps the demand should come from that person instead.

I don't see why they have to redistribute anything, if the hardware hasn't been delivered.  It might even be shipped with the unit... who knows!

Demanding stuff seems so wrong;  especially after everything they have done for the bitcoin community.  Trying to get a open platform to market.  Not trying to take advantage of their skill set in bringing it to fruition just for themselves, instead allowing the boxes to be distributed far and wide to build the foundation of the network.

All of these complaints, are they even customers of Avalon?

I ordered one box from Avalon; they said in the beginning it would be shipped/delivered by the end of February 2013.  They are currently (AFAIK) on schedule and yet they still get bashed constantly for everything.  Why?  They are on schedule.  They are delivering generally what they said they would deliver.  They will arrive when they arrive (I'm sure source was well).  It is a little early to start demanding source before distribution of binaries is it not?

When I purchased the one box I thought they would be shipping MONTHs after everyone.  But I liked the idea and the plan behind building the boxes so I put my BTC's where my mouth was.

If you look at what ngzhang has committed to the open source community, if you look at his youtube videos... from what I can see is a company/organization that is actually making a difference, unlike some others that appears to be in it for (more) personal gain.

Do they really care ? 

Even worst : Batch 2 order was made trough WalletBit.. who suck 0.89% fee on a BTC deposit in a customer's wallet !
Speculation : Avalon may have made a deal with them.. afaik chinese-like-business-practice !!

Well, I officially called it, but I honestly thought "weeks" would be an exaggeration at the time.

I never had a problem with the source of Lancelot, it arrived with the hardware on a USB stick. Since Jeff and the Bitcoin Foundation allready has a Avalon device i assume they have the source.

No worries the release of Icarus was a mess too, but in the end it worked
We all gonna have soon the pleasure of many different ASICs, so i realy see no reason for hot minds.

It would be so much easier if companies would just release the source when they release binaries.

Bitsyncom, post the source. Now.

Well, technically, there is no 30 days. If a customer requests code, and you do not provide it, you are immediately in violation. Technically you're supposed to stop distributing immediately and are liable to legal action if you continue. At this point two things can happen:

1) you "fix" it and start distributing source code. After 60 days of "good" behaviour, the violation evaporates and you have the full license to distribute again.
2) you don't fix it, and a cgminer dev tells you you are in violation. The cgminer dev does not need to receive the software, but only needs to have evidence that one of your customers was denied access to the source code. At this point you have 30 days to fix it, if you do you get your full license back automatically.
3) cgminer devs can just tell you that your license is terminated, due to the violation, and you must cease distributing the software in binary form.

(see section 8 of GPL)

GPL disputes are best handled politely and in good faith, not with the copyright holder going after the fork with guns blazing and the fork going into a legal turtle shell. So there is language regarding 30 days to "cure the violation," but you really shouldn't be using it like a clock.

Yeah when it was all moved over to this thread I was looking to see who did it.
Of course I've no problem with the fact it was done, but it would be reasonable for the mod to say they actually did it by editing the first post (or adding a post when they did the break explaining that)

As I've said, it doesn't matter ... and I guess that is a big part of the whole misunderstanding ...
Xiangfu can support it, or even get ckolivas himself to support it.

Having the hardware is necessary to do proper support.

By support I mean: advancing the code, fixing bugs and answering questions.
... just like I do with the Icarus code ... and the MMQ and BFL FPGA code ... coz I have all 3.
... and I don't do with the ztex code, coz I don't have one ...
Xiangfu will have an Avalon soon, but I'd certainly go as far as suggesting that giving ckolivas one and thus getting his support would be even better for Avalon and it's customers.
(and I will repeat again what I said ... I don't want one)

The ASIC software environment will be very interesting ...
ckolivas has never had any FPGAs so he has, to a large extent, stayed away from most of the FPGA driver code.
He has of course done most of the changes not directly part of the FPGA driver code, to the main cgminer code that all devices use.
He also did the one change to the BFL FPGA code that was the biggest performance gain since it was first written
(I had earlier done the equivalent change to the Icarus code)
As I have said quite a few times and also for a very long time, the initial choice for the FPGA code of serial-USB was problematic and in general a bad choice.
I finally got around to doing something about that at the end of last year by rewriting the serial-USB part and using direct USB, that all future USB code will be using by whoever writes the drivers (I've also converted both the MMQ and the BFL FPGA code over to it)

But regarding the GPL, as I've said from the beginning, the cgminer code already exists and according to Avalon, existed complete on the 20th Jan.
There will not be any ground breaking code in there. I can tell you up front.
ckolivas is now working on the main change to cgminer itself for ASIC, handling devices with MCU queues
I believe Xiangfu did a somewhat related change to support sending ~24 items to the Avalon all at once, but having ckolivas do it in the main code (as I wanted it done) and then having an ASIC use all the new USB code will be very interesting indeed, most so also due to the fact that ckolivas himself will be completely involved with the direct ASIC code due to having ASIC devices.

I am indeed looking forward to what happens with cgminer with this new code and both of us working on it
... and of course anyone else who fonts up and provides good quality code and ongoing support for whatever other devices we don't have the hardware for.

You just told off a moderator. It was a moderator who did that.
[/quote]

I see, this came from the BFL thread.  That's just a fkn bad! I wish the mods would make a note at the start of the thread when they do that.

That would be like bill gates walking into apple headquarters and start yelling at Mark Zuckerberg!

o.0

Nevermind, it was answered previously.

Again, a low count poster who didn't follow along and realized that the moderator did a thread split.

Is the 30days from someone who recieved the binary and makes the request?

Or is the 30 days applicable from the day of releasing the binary to someone who doesn't have a right to ask for the source code. (not even a customer, did not receive the binary, ?therefore can't make it a request on legitimate grounds?)

When does the clock start running and what is the basis at which it starts the 30 day limit?

I actually do not know, that is why I am asking.

You just told off a moderator. It was a moderator who did that.

Actually the original posts were placed in the thread "Announcement - ASIC mining processor by Butterfly Labs" as a reply to this message:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1511889

and some friendly forum mod moved them (right so) to their own thread. So things are a bit out of context

(It's amazing the amount of mudslinging that goes on between the believers and disbelievers of the different vendors, and now even the people in charge... shees what a bunch of wasted energy that could have been spent answering your own customers questions and request)

I hope Yifu must be traveling the red eye flight back to China to spend some obligatory quality time with family and had some time to kill in the waiting area...

+1

Dear Yifu,

I am sorry to derail this thread, but after not seeing you active anywhere else on the forums for many days, I am going to grab your attention here:
Can you PLEASE confirm the orders that have been paid for in batch #2? There are those of us who have paid in full for them last week already and have received neither a reply from Walletbit nor from Avalon.

I appreciate that you are dealing with many things at the moment, but surely you realize that many of us have sent you thousands of dollars and have been not received any sign of life from anyone and that this is inconsiderate of your customers.

Thanks.

(My Avalon ticket is #224)

+ 1



+ 2