Jump to content

MIDIbox on eBay


smashtv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Funny, I had a similar idea (except for the donation requirements) - a new forum section for sell requests (regardless if somebody wants to sell a box via Ebay, to friends or "customers"), open discussions and an offical "go" from my side, so that it is clear under which conditions I accept this, and under which not.

(Please understand that I don't want to discuss all the details here, a) I've currently other things to do, b) this is low-priority, c) this is something which has to be well thought out - no fast-shots!)

Best Regards, Thorsten.

Hi, sorry if the quote above turns out wrong or too long, I'm new at this.

I just want to point out what another great DIY group, www.ax84.com, has done about this licensing issue.

Their project is a DIY valve guitar amp based on their own design. First let me say that their project is a very successfull one, has a very active forum and good, fun designs are made based on their initial base design.

They allow ANYONE to sell the amps they have made, and some people have even started small buisnesses and make a living of it.

Their demands are simple: Don't mention ax84, or the webpage to anyone buying. What you sell is YOUR product and YOU are responsible for any support that has to be made to the customer.

In my opinion this seems to be a fair license. Nobody directs customer traffic to the website, and the forum gains from having experienced people sharing thoughts and solutions. The fact that people are selling amps they make seems to me to be a great thing, and I would personally be happy if people could start a carrier from what they like to do, not to mention if I had a part in making it happen (which I don't, I am not in any way affiliated...blah)

Anyway, that's my humble opinion, and just to clarify: I am not in the selling buisness myself, and please don't threaten to bully me like I saw someone do to someone earlier in this thread. You don't make friends that way. Just look at the middle east.

Kind regards,

Bjarni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi.

They allow ANYONE to sell the amps they have made, and some people have even started small buisnesses and make a living of it.

Their demands are simple: Don't mention ax84, or the webpage to anyone buying. What you sell is YOUR product and YOU are responsible for any support that has to be made to the customer.

THEY might allow it - but show me a Country with such a Laws that allows you to manufacture and sell mains powered, High-Voltage product:

A. Without a proper License to work on such appliances?

B. Without product being checked by the nameities for the electrical safety?

Can you get the drift? So, lets not give wrong encouragement here.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against proper novel products based on MBHP/MIOS. (with OK from Thorsten) But with the current statement of Midibox being DIY, I find it highly annoying that somebody thinks He/She can sell something based entirely on somebody elses work for profit. "Well, I build it" isn't a good excuse for me.

Now that's done, I'll bully you a little.  ;D

I am not in the selling buisness myself, and please don't threaten to bully me like I saw someone do to someone earlier in this thread. You don't make friends that way. Just look at the middle east.

"Friends help each other. That's what they are for"? The guy build the box without any help and decided to sell it without asking first. I don't think he was in a need for a friend? And by the way, talking politics on the Midibox Forum really doesn't make friends, either.

Bye, Moebius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I seek a clarification here: The project is released under GPL?

As a follow up question - how many of you have READ the GPL?

If this is the case then there is no "but we don't want you do to Xyz with it". It's been released as FREE as in speech, not FREE as in beer.

The GPL allows you to use the code FOR ANY PURPOSE, not for any purpose unless we don't like it.

Anyone is entitled to build any product based on any GPL'd designs provided they publish any modifications, and provided access to the original material. The whole point of gpl is to PREVENT a group of people holding the intelectual property to randsom - which is exactly what some in this group are sugguesting should happen.

If for example someone wanted to sell kits of parts, they can read the parts lists, make up some PCB's and sell them for the cost of their materials plus a reasonable charge for their time. This has happened, and it IS A GOOD THING. Smash and others add value to the project by doing so. The GPL allows them to make a profit, but prevents them from exploiting the project, because if you think they're charging too much you can buy your parts elsewhere.

If someone buys a kit, and spends an hour assembling it, why shouldn't they charge $20 for their time? If you think thats too much and they're "profiting from the groups work", then the GPL means they have to tell you how to build your own. They can only profit from the VALUE THAT THEY ADD.

A source of pre-assembled modules would be an excellent thing for the project. It would dramatically increase the number of software developers who could contribute to the system. If you think the seller is exploiting the project by charging too much, and doing no work themselves, then undercut them and have all that profit for yourself.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THEY might allow it - but show me a Country with such a Laws that allows you to manufacture and sell mains powered, High-Voltage product:

A. Without a proper License to work on such appliances?

B. Without product being checked by the nameities for the electrical safety?

Well that's hardly my point. Obviously someone who was going to sell this would be responsible for any issues and getting the proper licenses.

I am simply pointing out a licensing scheme/kind suggestion that might work well here, since the main reason that is mentioned on this forum for not allowing people to sell is fear of buyers seeking to much support here and killing the active community.

If the box has no www.uCapps.de on it or "based on the public MIDIbox project" but is simply represented as the sellers own product, or with what ever brand name the seller decides, then normal non-DIY people are hardly going to be pestering us.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against proper novel products based on MBHP/MIOS. (with OK from Thorsten) But with the current statement of Midibox being DIY, I find it highly annoying that somebody thinks He/She can sell something based entirely on somebody elses work for profit. "Well, I build it" isn't a good excuse for me.

Well, currently Thorsten is getting no admiration for his work from Midibox buyers, because there aren't any. He is on the other hand getting lots of admiration and thanks from us on this forum.

If this scheme would be realised, he would still not get any admiration for Midibox buyers, because they don't know about this, but he would still be getting our thanks, plus the added benefit that those on a low budget can fearlessly sell their old midiboxes to finance their new ones, and some people might even have an income from this.

...with the current statement of Midibox being DIY, I find it highly annoying that somebody thinks He/She can sell something based entirely on somebody elses work for profit. "Well, I build it" isn't a good excuse for me.

It isn't based entirely on somebody elses work. The Mios is a platform, and how you implement the actual midibox involves a whole lot of your own designing, deciding, parts choosing, cosmetics and at last hands on work.

An example:

  When I use the Java API (which is free to anyone) to make a program that involves all sorts of networking, IO and processing that the people at Sun have laid out the groundwork for, and even implemented at large and provided me with tutorials and examples of how to use their code libraries, I am still the name of the software that combines these particular elements, and I give it a name and sell it and nobody thinks that's weird.  "I find it highly annoying" isn't a good excuse for me.

Now that's done, I'll bully you a little.  ;D

"Friends help each other. That's what they are for"? The guy build the box without any help and decided to sell it without asking first. I don't think he was in a need for a friend? And by the way, talking politics on the Midibox Forum really doesn't make friends, either.

Well this whole clause above doesn't make much sense to me, so fortunately I don't feel bullied by it. I do get your point on the politics though, I'll avoid saying anything that can be interpereted as politics on this forum.

That being said, let's all be friends and discuss this in a friendly tone. :-*

I hold no interrest here. Im just coming up with a suggestion that I think is good, and in fact much better than having a well respected license that isn't being honored (The GPL).

Regards,

Bjarni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's hardly my point. Obviously someone who was going to sell this would be responsible for any issues and getting the proper licenses.

Again I'd sugguest some people here ACTUALLY READ THE GPL. It specifically limits the original names legal liability for such stuff. It asserts that the name provides no warranty or support.

Anyway only an idiot would try selling even a fully assembled box with a homebuild PSU. Wallwarts suck but they were invented to specifcally allow manufacturers to avoid high voltage safety restrictions.

An example:

  When I use the Java API (which is free to anyone) to make a program that involves all sorts of networking, IO and processing that the people at Sun have laid out the groundwork for, and even implemented at large and provided me with tutorials and examples of how to use their code libraries, I am still the name of the software that combines these particular elements, and I give it a name and sell it and nobody thinks that's weird.  "I find it highly annoying" isn't a good excuse for me.

This is a slight grey area - I'd need to go back and check the licensing terms more closely...

Most software which is designed to be used as a library is released under LGPL, rather than othe original GPL. LGPL specifially allows code and applications which are layered on top of the licensed code to be free from restritions - eg you write something which uses the GCC C++ library, then you can do what you like with your code (you don't need to release it). The original GPL is less explicit, and I'm not sure it's clear...

Given the way that applications are downloaded into the system via sysex SEPERATLY from the OS, I think a case could be made that you're free to write your own apps, and keep the code private - he distributed hex/sysex does not contain GPL'd code. MIOS is not part of your programs, but rather a seperate artifact. On the other hand if you argue that MIOS and it's apps are inseperable then any app you write would have to be release under GPL.

The reason I asked for clarification is that the GPL licensing is a bit half hearted - it isn't clear that the GPL applies to the circuit designs, and a few more explicit references rather than just the src download page would be clearer. A copy of the GPL license should probably be included (at least) in the mios binary and src downloads, and a clear reference and link to it should be in the main project pages.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

[...]

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

right out of the box.

an OS like MIOS is not a machine application in itself. It is no sequencer, controller whatever, its a midi OS for pic controllers.

The schemes from Thorsten are copyrighted like stated in the impressum.

i really don't want to start a discussion on this because this happened long ago already about other OSes covered by GPL.  It's a pretty simple common interpretation/consensus on that: if you distribute or modify the app or OS under gpl you have to share the sources... if you write a program that interacts with it, but is your own work, your program is  not automatically covered by the license if you don't want that. you have to look at the compiler/assemblers license if in doubt about your programs licensing issues because there may be restrictions if you for example use a gnu compiler. if you are using third party libs they must not interfere with their licensing issues. the way of writing commercial programs on free oses covered by gpl is completely gone before by a lot of developers and it is save and stable legally. This totally implies a commercial use of the whole, as long as you respect the gpl for the parts which are covered by it. These remain free of charge, you just can take a distribution fee for these.)

For example, you can design a circuit compatible with MIOS on your own, burn a pic with the bootstrap, install MIOS (original or modified), layout the pcb for it, write your own app, put it in a self designed case, load your own app via midi, share the sources of MIOS *including* possible changes you made to it in one of the ways GPL offers to you accompanying your new product and sell it. It's mainly possible because MIOS is an operating system and not a statically linked function library. (It would probably need LGPL to make this possible otherwise.)

If you don't think this is a common sense of view you might read the following interesting literature on the common misunderstoodings of GPL:

http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/1545.html

Alot of companies actually use gpl'ed oses commercially for example in internet businesses.

this will be my last post in this thread i think... ;)

peace

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider some aspects:

- It's true that jamram selled copyrighted stuff, very probably it can be illegal.

- Getting IC stuff for free from companies is a bit crap. Sell them (and say it when you are selling it and spreading on a forum) is the most stupid act, please think about that.

- Selling stuff without knowing before if it's illegal do it is a stupid attitude, be more careful.

- Doing the MIDIBOX project not possible to sell it comercially is the biggest error in the world. It's true that if simply only abling to anyone do it and sell it winning money is crap, but if the project is only for geek people that know how use electronic boards and doing his own electronic stuff the userbase will be too low, an elitist thinking I think. Better do this: Make the MIDIBOX Foundation (a non-profit organization). Change the hardware licenses to one GPL-like but able to sell it comercially only if giving 10% of benefits to the MIDIBOX Foundation.

This will make MIDIBOX easier to get it and money for doing the MIDIBOX even better and a lot more resources for development.

Please think about all this, MIDIBOX being a geek project forever can kill itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think the focus that's been lost is that this isn't "our" project.  It's throston's.  It may be released with a GPL license, but that doesn't mean we can do what every we want with it.  Very few people here have done anything to impliment their own Mios applications.  Most of what's available has come from Thorston's own hard work.  If you want to make and sell a Midibox Sid or a Midibox control surface, I suggest you begin by not using the pcb layouts he's made.  Then, avoid using Mios, thats already been denied to people for the purpose of profits.  So learn a little bit of programming the PIC and use your own applications.  But at this point, it's not a midibox you've made.  You've now made your own product, and are free to do what you wish with it.  Minus any of the Mios code. 

The AX84 project is a diffrent matter.  The AX84 amps use designs that have been available way longer than most of us have been alive.  Although it is the work of only a few people, the design is based off fender, marshall, and rca designs deacdes ago.  The precidence was already set by RCA.  Mios is diffrent.  Because Thorston has decided that it should be diffrent.  It's as simple as that.  If you don't like the rules set before you, I already explained how to make a Midibox your free to sell in the paragraph above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This may rock the boat a bit but tough cos I don't understand exactly WHY someone cannot sell a midibox type controller? Please can someone point me to the EXACT rules regarding Midibox and legally why. Don't worry I am not planning massive worldwide domination/commercialisation  ;) I just find it interesting cos it obviously is a delicate issue. Surely you are selling the functionality not whats inside it?

My mate works for an engineering company and he says that he has just built an underwater camera control unit for use on a submarine. Now, the company he works for never made the PCBs, computer, etc that was in it. Therefore he was selling the functionality that was possible resulting from the combination of various "off the shelf" type technologies. What's the difference? Forgive me for my naivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may rock the boat a bit but tough cos I don't understand exactly WHY someone cannot sell a midibox type controller? Please can someone point me to the EXACT rules regarding Midibox and legally why.

No worries about rocking the boat, It is very important people understand these things.... ;)

TK wrote the code that makes the boxes work, and he has stated that this project is for non-commercial use, and its given freely for personal DIY use only.  It's really a trick to inspire learning, perpetuated by TK and helped by the community as a whole.  You can't throw a rock around here without hitting someone who came here with no electronics experience, but now has learned more than enough to help newbies and solve problems on their own.  It's a great motivator, and since it is not available commercially it gives people who think they "could never do that" a kick since they can't just buy it.

Whoops, got ahead of myself, you said EXACT......Check QA2, QA3, and QA4 from the wiki.

Don't worry I am not planning massive worldwide domination/commercialisation  ;) I just find it interesting cos it obviously is a delicate issue. Surely you are selling the functionality not whats inside it?

Right, the hardware designs are textbook stuff, "obvious extension of existing technology" for the legal types, but the code it runs is 99% or more TK's creation, is not an obvious extension of any other code base, and is the magic that makes this rather simple hardware sing.

My mate works for an engineering company and he says that he has just built an underwater camera control unit for use on a submarine. Now, the company he works for never made the PCBs, computer, etc that was in it. Therefore he was selling the functionality that was possible resulting from the combination of various "off the shelf" type technologies. What's the difference? Forgive me for my naivity.
The big difference here is the code/software that runs it.  If your mate did not have to do any programming to make the rig run, then his creation (actually his company's creation) is an obvious extension of existing tech.  If any of the off-the-shelf parts have a processor it's likely that the code they came with is part of the purchase price, and is subject to whatever licensing terms were in place at purchase time.  Most likely those parts were sold as modules to be used in this way, and the usage agreement for them allows for this type of use (OEM). 

Quite simply the usage license for the MIDIbox does not allow for this type of OEM use.

What we need is the magic sentence that can make this obvious to anyone who sees it, so we can spend this time tinkering instead.  :)

Best!

Smash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

(note: these aren't mine!)

yet again... two sold and one currently up for sale... (http://tinyurl.com/7at4j and http://tinyurl.com/c2nkc)

this didn't bother me when he first posted one, saying that he had two and only needed one. then, the other one turned up, and now there seems to be a third listing.

funniest part of it is the notes in the description: "MIDIbox SID is a non-commercial & 'DIY-only' project"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm confused. People in this thread seem to be saying it's NOT okay to sell a MIDI controller based on MIOS and MIDIBox, but this paragraph from the FAQ states:

Every MIOS application is licensed under GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), you are allowed to distribute the application, and you will be the copyright owner of your own code (but not of MIOS itself), and you are allowed to sell your project so long you don't violate the license, and this means that you have to publish all sources (which are required to reconstruate your project) to the public domain.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, so please don't shoot me.

Does this not mean that a box based on MIOS with a custom application on top of it can be sold as long as the buyer is provided with published source code for the application?  I understand that the seller doesn't own MIOS copyright - that's stated explicitly above.

I guess my basic question is this:

If MIOS source is provided and any custom application source is provided can a hardware MIDI controller based on MIOS be sold commercially?

Thanks

-Adrian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was stated earlier in this thread, but at the very least, I think anyone considering publicly offering any of this stuff for money could mention it here and to Thorsten for an OK. If you start looking for "loopholes" in the legalities of it, you're already doing something wrong. ;) I can appreciate how much work goes into a good box, but the circuits and the bulk of the code are the core of the whole system (no pun intended). Starting a box with the intention of selling it doesn't sound right, much less "mass producing" the same one for subsequent sales.

Don't mean to offend anyone here, but someone gave us something they worked very hard on, so we could use it and work on it, and they didn't ask for any money in exchange. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

-Take Care

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...