openinverter forum

I think the end result from my point of view is this:
* The base framework is free. They are not end user products.
* If you wish to make a business from this, you should have experts in both hardware and software to ensure that the product you deliver meets your supportability requirements or standards.
* Problems need to be reported back. Nothing can be done about them otherwise.
* There are commercial solutions that can be chosen instead if this doesn't suit your needs.

johu wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:35 pm I feel such a deep moral obligation that I even hand out the blue prints so they can use my product without giving me a single penny.

Most of the people we are helping have purchased your products and want in return a stable solution that they can use.

mdrobnak wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:45 pm They are not end user products.

Agreed and this is something we will start communicating from now on.

We aren't buying a commercial product, there's no retail packaging etc.

I don't expect anything more than if I'd taken the design files and ordered my self from jlcpcb.

When I'm paid to write software and I use open source libraries, if it has a bug or issue, I have to fix it myself or submit a bug report and hope the developers choose to address or pay them to address my specific issue.

A unified hardware makes plenty of sense, reducing the burden of maintance. One platform and one codebase is going to be easier to manage

Dont you guys think arguing here is counter productive?
Sure you can present fancy arguments from a single side, but that just leaves the other side more frustrated.
I am also not particulary happy this went the way of STM32 since i had plans for my DUE gizmo chargers and Chademo... Oh well i will make do with what is available now and wait for when new VCUs are tested... Then get new VCUs.

Lets face it STM32 makes sense because it makes OI stuff more modular. And MEs and EEs understand modular really well .

Bigpie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:53 pm We aren't buying a commercial product, there's no retail packaging etc.

So, what about the people who have purchased products and are none technical? Are they not relevant once they've spent their money?

Bigpie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:53 pm A unified hardware makes plenty of sense, reducing the burden of maintance. One platform and one codebase is going to be easier to manage

We could have unified most of the products around the existing processor and put all the recent effort into delivering a more robust solution. We would also of benefited by building on years of working software and hardware without having to start testing most systems again from scratch.

The difference with Open Vehicles development is stark. When we outgrew the first generation hardware we debated the options within the community and the end result is a much better platform today. I think we missed an opportunity on Open Inverter.

arber333 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:00 pm Dont you guys think arguing here is counter productive?

We're supporting a lot people who have purchased boards and struggle to get them working. I think it's important to raise these issues not only for the customers but also in the vain hope that next time a major change is considered it will be discussed with the community. Don't forget that many people impacted help fund this development through Patreon and donations, etc.

I don't see any issue here. The designs are open source, if you want to stay supplied with the boards you are used to then just have more of them made at a manufacturer of your choice. If you are worried about future updates then just accept the features that are already present, or update it yourself.

For a commercial product you would likely want your own variant anyway to suit your market.

New Electric Ireland wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:49 pm Agreed and this is something we will start communicating from now on.

Yup, was always communicated in both shops as well. We know our limits.

https://openinverter.org/shop/index.php ... duct_id=62
https://evbmw.com/index.php/evbmw-websh ... oards-copy

Donations are used to innovate which I hope is apparent. And also to keep the forum ad free.

Johannes (and Damien) owe us nothing. I’ll continue to support both through Patreon even if things take a different turn.

Support through the forum has been perfectly adequate to date.

xp677 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:22 pm I don't see any issue here.

So, what about the people who have purchased products and are none technical? Are they not relevant once they've spent their money?

New Electric Ireland wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:29 pm So, what about the people who have purchased products and are none technical? Are they not relevant once they've spent their money?

They can come here and ask questions at no cost involved. And often the issue is solved. Or they can pay for my time and be helped directly over video chat and remote access. BTW if it turns out the mistake was on my side I will (partly) refund. Happened once so far.

johu wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:38 pm BTW if it turns out the mistake was on my side I will (partly) refund. Happened once so far.

It looks like we have a generic problem here;

viewtopic.php?f=5&p=21543#p21543

Does this qualify for a refund?

New Electric Ireland wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:47 pm Does this qualify for a refund?

Refund the time for the call I meant. Not for the hardware.

Pretty sure Johannes and Damien both state the terms. I bought from Damien knowing I'd likely spend a lot of time reading and learning. I didn't buy a commercial product.

Look at linux distros. There are free and commercial versions along with many companies that offer support and services.

Must be a difference of mindset, if I wanted to avoid getting technical, I'd buy an expensive kit.

johu wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:52 pm Refund the time for the call I meant. Not for the hardware.

OK, I'll suggest they contact you as a group and see if you can work out what's going on. It's a pain when end users have to re-programme hardware that should be working on delivery.

Bigpie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:55 pm Must be a difference of mindset, if I wanted to avoid getting technical, I'd buy an expensive kit.

You're a software guy, lots end users are not. Given these don't work on delivery I don't think you can blame people who just want to use the product without buying programming tools, searching out missing files, etc., etc.

Well it's worth a try, just be aware that I'm not involved in the VCU project and am not selling the corresponding hardware either. So I can only solve more generic problems.

Maybe they're buying the wrong tool for the job in that case.

Want something that just works, buy a Mac or Windows pc. If you're prepared to learn and put the effort in download Debian.

I converted a motorcycle a few years ago, for speed and simplicity I bought a kit, motor, controller, throttle etc. I expected that to just work and to have support. It was sold under that description.

FWIW both Johannes and Damien and others have helped me with problems, for free, when they didnt have to, and so I've helped others where I could. Ive been on video calls with other members, again for free, to help them.

Maybe being a software guy means it's pretty clear in my mind the difference between a commercial product and open source.

johu wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:26 pm Yup, was always communicated in both shops as well. We know our limits.

Final thought for today... have you checked your support model is legal in Germany? A friend just reminded me that EU law requires the manufacturer to offer a two year (minimum) guarantee and that includes demonstrating the product works

Thats why I sell kits only

With respect to making a more polished product:

The libopeninv project is LGPL and can be used in commercial project as long as you haven't modified that library. Changes to it need to be given back (I think this is reasonable). Also do note this is the data from github that I'm getting this from, I am not a lawyer.
The libopencm3 library is the same.
stm32-sine is unclear as to the license terms, and probably should be clarified. If not GPL (like BSD, MIT, Apache or something) then a closed-source version can be made.

Fun times all around.

Thats GPL v3 (see gpl.txt in repo)

johu wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:14 pm Thats GPL v3 (see gpl.txt in repo)

Ah, I missed that. I think there's a way to tell github specifically what the license is, or maybe a symlink to LICENSE.

That all said, I think you've put a lot of work into the inverter software, so I have no problems with that needing to be open.

There's a lot of functions available in the library

-Matt

There needs to be a reality check here I think.

The hardware and software is fundamentally open source, it is upto the contributors how they wish the software/hardware to be developed, it's their baby after all ( I and meny others appreciate the efforts) if someone wants to go in a different direction they can simply fork it and go where they want.

To advise a non technically minded person to use open source is just plain wrong, the best example I can give is letting my wife use my Debian laptop, the end result is always the same ... Failure!

Most on the forum I would hope are technically minded and understand the open source life cycle where the old VCU have progressed into long term support (this has happened earlier than expected, however the reasons for this are sound as stm32 availability is very strong and not likely to be an issue in the next decade) , there is nothing preventing important changes to be ported back.

Personally I think unifying around the stm32 and unifying around a openenverter code is the best for long term development.

I wish to convey my point that contributions of the developers are appreciated and they have every right to proceed in any direction they wish.