Money opens source

[MDTURBO]

Lastly, I'd suggest writing these capabilities into a library that can easily be integrated into one's application... either a COM interface or DLL.

[silverpike]

Well thanks Colby for changing your mind on publishing the source code under the open source license. You’ve just cost me tens of thousands of dollars in out sourced R & D and my own time.

I want to make something clear, and apparently Colby hasn't said this (which confuses me).

The reason there is language about not-for-profit licensing in there is due to the QT library. QT is a powerful and widely-used multi-platform windowing library. Trolltech, the company which publishes QT, has specified that no for-profit software may use their libraries without paying license fees. Therefore, colby is bound by this limitation as well. Technically, it's not his fault this requirement exists.

Colby might well choose to use a different window library. I know of a few, and some might be powerful enough to serve his needs.

[intrawrx]

This post will most likely be deleted.. But I find it very funny how everyone here bitch and complain about.. "Oh he didn't release the source"

Jesus, I’ve not seen anyone else here (bar a few people) who actively help Colby out with some of the disassembly, hardware or time needed to have a way to tune the cars yourself.

Has anyone here actively bought software to disassemble stuff here?

Has anyone donated hardware to this cause, full well knowing they might never get it back in working order?

and now... since the word's spreading that you can do all this on a stock ecu.. Everyone rubbing their hands on getting some money out of it.. i find it laughable that you guys potentially bitch and complain.

If I were Colby.. I’d be locking it and releasing it to a few trusted people.. End of story..


As most things with life.. there the door.. don’t like it out you go.

Easy.

[xswrex]

^ + a billion

[SilverBack]

Why do people bitch so when they are getting something for free in the first place?

[Freon]

OP: Go ahead and integrate Ecuflash into your application, but you will have to release your own source code. Why would you have a problem with this? Afterall, if you expect to use others' code for free, why can't others' use your code for free?

The GPL kicks ass like that. If you want to use others' work for free, you must release your work for free as well. It's wonderful!

Being able to use the binary Ecuflash for free for any purpose (including commercial) is already a huge "gift" (if you will) to the community.

[MDTURBO]

I would be willing to help you out financially if I could get the code in a libary format. I do windows / .net. convert to c#?

If not that's cool I understand. Let us know what you plan on doing. open source for the general public and pay for commercial use.

[coder]

I don’t believe that QT components are the only reason why Colby decided to charge for the source code. Personally I have absolutely no use for either the map editing functions nor the pretty interface. If Colby will ever contact me and sell me a commercial license the very first thing I would be doing is cutting down ECUFlash to a simple ECU read/write support (the second priority would be porting to Linux).

There seems to be a group of hard-core/we helped Colby/you don’t deserve to be here/keep it secret supporters:
Not all of us found out about this project as early as you did.
I have sent pictures of all evo ECU boards I could get and expressed my desire to help many times. I was willing to give Colby access to my internet infrastructure (free servers). I offered Colby source code for my hex editor and help to write the map editing software. I even offered Colby financial support before his decision to license the source code, what else could I possibly do?
Is it my fault that Colby didn’t need or accept my help?

As far as I’m aware Colby is the brain behind all of the ECU flashing code, thus it would be great to find out who else wrote the difficult parts e.g. the kernels, key/seed algorithms or the trojan to get into SH7055. Hands up everyone so I can give you the credit you truly deserve.

[galvitron]

OP: You are extremely selfish and have no basis for expecting anything from Colby.

And as far as the wait for the source code...

Imagine how many questions Colby will get like "How do I compile blah blah blah!?!? I want answers now! You suck for not spoonfeeding me." as soon as people have access to the source.

As far as I know, his compilation process is multistep with multiple compilers, so it's not a matter of simply uploading a DLL and a windows forms front end solution that immediately compiles in Visual Studio for everyone to download...

[kothog]

* you could make a modifed version, provided you supply the source code for it to anyone for free.

Actually this is a simplification that, while when liberally interpreted is accurate, isn't quite so much so when applied to others. I believe you are already aware of this given your other posts and the differentiations you make, but I wanted to clarify for posterity.

The GPL doesn't force you to release any code modifications to anyone *until* you redistribute GPL'd code. So, for example, these people could build a new version of their software for themselves, and even use it to flash customers' cars and charge thousands of dollars for the service. They could even let customers sit down in front of a terminal and use the software, and they could legitimately refuse people access to their modifications.

However, the moment they try to redistribute said software to a third party, then they fall under the GPL. If they, as a company for example, develop these additional modifications, then they could even copy it around amongst themselves and not be fully subject to the GPL because a corporate entity has "person" status. So if they have fifteen branches that are all part of the exact same company they could copy it all over the place to their employees and never have to give out a line of source.

I don't have a clue what would happen to wholly-owned subsidiaries or subsidiaries that the parent company owns a controlling interest in. I still suspect that they are considered separate entities and people couldn't get away with GPL-avoidance tricks in that sense.

Anyway, it's only at the moment of redistribution that the GPL comes into full force.

I'm looking forward to the day when you release the source, too, under the GPL. After all, my personal freedom in the use of said source is my primary interest, as it is for all your (happier?) users.