Print

[arpruss]

There is something really weird about the PDK license.  It says: "(a) you shall not license, sell, rent, lease, transfer, assign, distribute, display, host, outsource, disclose or otherwise commercially exploit or make the Licensed Software available to any third party ; (b) you shall not modify, make derivative works of, disassemble, reverse compile or reverse engineer any part of the Licensed Software". 

Taking this literally, it means that you can't modify the example code included in the PDK ("modify ... any part"), you can't build code using the media (csv and wav) included with the PDK ("make derivative works of ... any part"), and you can't distribute any application developed with the PDK that includes any media (csv and wav) included with the PDK ("distribute").

I am guessing they just took their standard license, which makes no sense for an SDK, and attached it to their PDK. 

I expanded on the IR remote example code to work with my Toshiba 27AF42 TV's remote, move forward, back, bite, kiss, etc.  I'd like to post, but am worried about the PDK licensing.

[PleoPet]

re: There is something really weird about the PDK license.

FWIW: I totally agree.
If interested please see my rant on this thread: http://bobthepleo.com/forums/index.php?topic=876.0

IMHO/IANAL: the company needs to fix the licensing terms. Until then any developer using the PDK may be sued (unless they keep everything to themselves)
BTW: some people have argued "let them sue me, I have no money to lose". In similar circumstances, companies don't use EULA/Copyright/DMCA to make money from you, they do it to control their intellectual property (eg: Sony versus AiboHack, and many more recent examples). In this case they would be in the right.

My bottom line remains: the new company must change the PDK licensing terms. If they fail to do so, do not trust them. If they can't legally because of past agreements, then the PDK is a joke. If they completely ignore this issue, they Pleo is destined to die another premature death. (all IMHO)

[arpruss]

re: There is something really weird about the PDK license. 

FWIW: I totally agree.
If interested please see my rant on this thread: http://bobthepleo.com/forums/index.php?topic=876.0

IMHO/IANAL: the company needs to fix the licensing terms. Until then any developer using the PDK may be sued (unless they keep everything to themselves)

Actually, taken literally, any developer using the PDK, unless he creates all the media from scratch and doesn't use any of the example code (and even then the use of the inc files will be a gray area), is violating the license by creating a derivative work, even if he keeps it all to himself.  I think it's fair to suppose that they don't really mean anything draconic like that, and I suspect they don't mean to prohibit public distribution either, but I agree that it might be foolish to release stuff publicly (unless it doesn't use any of their media or example code).

My bottom line remains: the new company must change the PDK licensing terms. If they fail to do so, do not trust them. If they can't legally because of past agreements, then the PDK is a joke. If they completely ignore this issue, they Pleo is destined to die another premature death. (all IMHO)

Have you written to them about this?  Probably right now isn't a good time as they are probably very busy dealing with post-Christmas tech support for failing batteries.  (By the way, while charging the one included with our Pleo once only gave five minutes of run time, charging it over and over and over, about a dozen times, helped.  I don't know if it successfully reconditioned, though.) I'd be happy to co-write a letter with you.

[GarethNelson]

I know this is an old topic but I thought i'd bump it - see my thread on "Open PDK": this will be fixed

[PleoPet]

GarthNelson wrote:
> ...see my thread on "Open PDK": this will be fixed
Commentary:
My point was that the new owners of PLEO aren't taking the PDK seriously (which appears to still be the case)
I'm glad you are taking it more seriously than they are.

(BTW: The EULA does prohibit reverse engineering ;-)

Unfortunately IMHO the big missing piece is the Pawn source code to the personality (not the low level PDK that is good for simple personalities that replace it completely)

[Crewella]

It's a shame as this does seem to be inhibiting developers from taking Pleo further.  I'm VERY technologically challenged (so please forgive any dodgy terminology!), but I am interested in learning about the various tweaks and personalities possible, and I have been very grateful for some of the user-developed tools, even though some are now not fully relevant to the current OS.  If those with the real know-how are no longer engaged in taking the Pleo software any further, I think the Pleo experience is much the poorer for many of the rest of us.

*But thanks, guys, anyway!*

[GarethNelson]

(BTW: The EULA does prohibit reverse engineering ;-)

Kinda besides the point - what i'll be releasing isn't infringing on any of their copyrights, and thus their EULA doesn't matter.

Unfortunately IMHO the big missing piece is the Pawn source code to the personality (not the low level PDK that is good for simple personalities that replace it completely)

Personally i'd be happier with source code for LifeOS

[Crewella]

You've got me intrigued now, Gareth - I wonder what you've got planned?

Incidentally, you said "see my thread on "Open PDK"" in your earlier post?  Erm.......can't find it anywhere?  Or am I losing it completely?

[PleoPet]

I wrote:
> (BTW: The EULA does prohibit reverse engineering ;-)
GarethNelson wrote:
> Kinda besides the point - what i'll be releasing isn't infringing on any of their copyrights, and thus their EULA doesn't matter.

I meant it in jest - but taking the point seriously:

If you have produced anything using the PDK, and reverse engineered any of it, then you are in violation of the EULA. Even if you make a work-alike version, but you downloaded the PDK in order to make your work-alike version you are breaking the terms of the EULA.
The only way of covering your butt is to have a "clean room" reverse engineered version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

Did I mention the PDK has an oppressive EULA?


Continued commentary: The PDK has an oppressive EULA. Most people here see it as a joke because they think the company is not going to sue them.
If you are willing to release something that is blatantly in violation of the EULA, please be honest and say so. That way you are bringing attention to the bad EULA.
FWIW: I am not releasing anything new for the Pleo in protest of this oppressive EULA.

To repeat:
> If the new owners won't remove the restrictive licensing terms, then be afraid, very afraid!

[Crewella]

FWIW: I am not releasing anything new for the Pleo in protest of this oppressive EULA.

Which I, for one, think is a real shame but I can completely understand your position, in the circumstances.

It would be good to see this discussed further - Innvo's current position does seem contradictory.  One assumes they issued the PDK becuase they wanted people to get involved?  If they do, they need to follow that through logically, surely, and show a consistent policy?

[GarethNelson]

You've got me intrigued now, Gareth - I wonder what you've got planned?

Incidentally, you said "see my thread on "Open PDK"" in your earlier post?  Erm.......can't find it anywhere?  Or am I losing it completely?

http://bobthepleo.com/forums/index.php?topic=1426.msg19801

Anyway, since i'm not releasing anything that infringes on their copyright, what I release is not covered by the terms of their EULA, whether they want it to be or not.
The wine project is one I look to here for legal precedent - you think microsoft are happy about them producing a windows API work-alike?

[Crewella]

Thanks Gareth, but apparently 'The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you. ', which is what I get if I click on that link!  That puts me in my place!

[GarethNelson]

How bizarre!

Ask one of the mods to help perhaps? Works fine for me and i'm pretty much a newbie here

[grumpy]

Seems to work fine for me as well.  I tried it with several accounts.

[Crewella]

All sorted, I can see it now - thanks guys!

[PleoPet]

> ... Anyway, since i'm not releasing anything that infringes on their copyright,
Wow, taking the headers and removing the copyright messages - I didn't know the EULA was that easy to get around ;->

(this is meant in jest - no need to hire a lawyer)

----
There is little more I can say on this topic. You have helped to prove my point that it is next to impossible to program the PLEO without violating the terms of the EULA. You need to be able to reverse engineer and redistribute the results in order to make a viable robot platform. If you need to hire a lawyer before you get started with the PDK (either version) then nobody will be using it.

IMHO: A reworking of the PDK is a good learning experience, but is not the missing piece for improving the robot. An open source reimplementation of the main personality, would move the platform into the future.
Good luck

[GarethNelson]

The function prototypes are not copyrightable creative works - they are purely functional in form, not expressive. I do know about the legal background on this and have consulted with actual lawyers on similar cases.
It's my personal opinion that nothing in OpenPDK infringes on Innvo/Ugobe's copyright, but if you're worried then feel free not to use it or to consult an attorney.

Everything else (including the pawn compiler) is either original work or was licensed under a GPL-compatible free software license.