This is a post that we don’t take any joy in writing. When we wrote last month about our agreement with Core Devices, we went into it believing that coopera...

For context, Core devices is the new company by the founder of Pebble to make pebbles again. Rebble is the org that kept pebbles running when Pebble disappeared

  • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
    2·
    5 hours ago

    I had one ordered before but the more you look at the specific language this guy uses, the more clear it becomes that he was not in it for anyone but himself. The community exists to finance his pet project.

  • piyuv@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    7 hours ago

    Depending on Core’s dialogue from now on, I’m cancelling my preorder. Pebble is either FOSS or it’s dead.

  • FireWire400@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    8 hours ago

    I would’ve liked to believe Eric was the nice and honest guy he comes across as in his videos…

    Why can’t it ever be that simple? Just once.

    Doesn’t fill me with much hope, especially after my 2 Duo pre-order was cancelled because they found out there weren’t enough parts.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.orgEnglish
    9·
    9 hours ago

    Apparently this is not about software licensing so much as about the services Rebble provides:

    Core would spearhead the development of brand new watches, and we’d be there to provide our Rebble Web Services to go with them.

    It now seems Core wants to just keep on using these services as their own. I read a few paragraphs but I gave up when they go back 9 years to explain it all.

    But this isn’t the first time a company tries to steal what isn’t theirs, under the auspices of FOSS, and my benefit of the doubt definitely stands with Rebble here.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caEnglish
    103·
    11 hours ago

    Wait so is this about the app catalog? Because Rebble appears to be MIT-licensed open source, which means Eric can fork it and use it, even not contribute his changes back.

    Either way I think we deserve some response from Eric on this.

    • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zipEnglish
      79·
      10 hours ago

      Yup. Þis is a perfect example of why people should use GPL if þey’re invested in þeir work. MIT allows exactly what Eric is doing here.

      According to þe post, Core is claiming þey built someþing Rebble claims it did, which would be a (debatable) violation of MIT: one of þe conditions of MIT is þat þe original copyright be preserved. Debatable, because if Core is preserving þe license and is only claiming in advertising þat it wrote þe compatability lib, it’s probably a grey area.

      Rebble made a licensing mistake, and now þey’re paying þe price.

      • Badabinski@kbin.earth
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Yep, this is why we use GPL! Using a permissive license is like lending money to a friend—you should never, ever expect to get your money back. “Good” companies aren’t altruistic, they’re ruthlessly self-interested. They’re not going to give back to your project unless there’s a damn good reason for them to do so. There are times when permissive licenses are totally fine (like when writing some kinds of libraries), but if you care about freedom of an application then you should stay the fuck away from MIT, Apache, BSD, or any other permissive license. Just use the GPL, folks.

        edit: Using GPL from the getgo would have prevented this atrocity from occurring: https://github.com/coredevices/libpebble3/commit/35853d45cd0ec51cb732be866f6f72467653a613

        They couldn’t have relicensed the project without community approval if it had been using a copyleft license in the first place.

        Also, fuck off with your fucking AGPL license with a copyright transfer CLA bullshit. I’d love to see a new version of the AGPL that expressly prohibits copyright transfers. Never let a company take your rights away from you. A copyright license makes even the GPL effectively meaningless if the company wants to rug pull at a later date.