MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

DIY 4ms SMR
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Tech DIY Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next [all]
Author DIY 4ms SMR
bennelong.bicyclist
av500 wrote:
bennelong.bicyclist wrote:

OK, I'm just pointing out that such group buys are not compliant with the wording of the CC BY-NC-SA license.


CC BY-NC-SA states: "A commercial use is one primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation."

the FAQ states: "This is intended to capture the intention of the NC-using community without placing detailed restrictions that are either too broad or too narrow" and further: "The inclusion of “primarily” in the definition recognizes that no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity; it is only the primary purpose of the reuse that needs to be considered."

(bold emphasis mine)

so BY-NC-SA prohibiting a group buy is not a given to me.


Surely the primary use (or re-use) of the PCB design files in such a group-buy is the exchange of a physical PCB in return for money to cover the costs of that PCB (+/- some profit or loss on the transaction)? If the PCBs were just given out, and a donation was requested, then arguably the monetary compensation in exchange for the PCBs would be secondary. But selling them, even at cost, seems to be primarily a commercial use as described by the CC license.

I think you are confusing the use of the physical PCB by the recipient with the use of the PCB design files by the person selling them through a group-buy. The former is fine under the CC BY-NC-SA license.

It is moot in the case of the 4ms SMRF given that Dan Green appears to have assented to group-buys of PCBs for it. My point was regarding a technicality of CC BY-NC-SA licensing, that's all.
cane creek
bennelong.bicyclist wrote:
is offering a "group-buy" of 4ms SMRF PCBs - see


Why are you linking a document which is part of a private close group on a public forum which contains peoples private information ?
bennelong.bicyclist
cane creek wrote:
bennelong.bicyclist wrote:
is offering a "group-buy" of 4ms SMRF PCBs - see


Why are you linking a document which is part of a private close group on a public forum which contains peoples private information ?


It is a publicly accessible document! Anyone with the URL can access it. I was sent the URL. There is nothing to indicate that it is a private document - there's even a blue SHARE button in the top right corner.

However, I agree, the wisdom of putting private data in a publicly-accessible document like that is questionable. Given that some of the people who have added their personal details to it may not be aware just how open the document is, I'll edit out the link from my post above.
synchromesh
cane creek wrote:
bennelong.bicyclist wrote:
is offering a "group-buy" of 4ms SMRF PCBs - see


Why are you linking a document which is part of a private close group on a public forum which contains peoples private information ?


I don't think linking to a Facebook page, closed group or not, counts as leaking anyone's private information. If it's on Facebook, it can't be that private to start with. And if it is that private, you won't see it via a public link, right?

EDIT: Oh, he was linking to the spreadsheet. Yeah, that's not really that private either.

bennelong.bicyclist is perfectly entitled to bring up his concerns so that we can all advance our understanding as a community.
cane creek
@synchromesh @bennelong.bicyclist, My Facebook page is publicly accessible however id be deeply disturbed if you posted my family photographs on this forum.

I'm pretty sure people put information on that sheet because it was in a part of the web only people in the know would be visiting, if they were aware people were going to post it on Muffwiggler i doubt they would of left their details on that document.
sendepause
cane creek wrote:
@synchromesh @bennelong.bicyclist, My Facebook page is publicly accessible however id be deeply disturbed if you posted my family photographs on this forum.

I'm pretty sure people put information on that sheet because it was in a part of the web only people in the know would be visiting, if they were aware people were going to post it on Muffwiggler i doubt they would of left their details on that document.


This is the main reason why bennelong.bicyclists action disturbs me the most. He stepped over a few "internet / social" boundaries. People accepted him in to a private group on facebook, starts waving the finger that everything is wrong. Then trows deliberately all the addresses of members on the internet by putting the link to the spreadsheet on Muff's. If privacy is so much a concern of you, dear sir, why in gods name have you done this?

I have a lot of respect for his work as a programmer (and in that his work for the community), and his concerns about copyright etc is fair. But i think these actions are a step to far... Sorry for my 2 cents
koerby
sendepause wrote:
cane creek wrote:
@synchromesh @bennelong.bicyclist, My Facebook page is publicly accessible however id be deeply disturbed if you posted my family photographs on this forum.

I'm pretty sure people put information on that sheet because it was in a part of the web only people in the know would be visiting, if they were aware people were going to post it on Muffwiggler i doubt they would of left their details on that document.


This is the main reason why bennelong.bicyclists action disturbs me the most. He stepped over a few "internet / social" boundaries. People accepted him in to a private group on facebook, starts waving the finger that everything is wrong. Then trows deliberately all the addresses of members on the internet by putting the link to the spreadsheet on Muff's. If privacy is so much a concern of you, dear sir, why in gods name have you done this?

I have a lot of respect for his work as a programmer (and in that his work for the community), and his concerns about copyright etc is fair. But i think these actions are a step to far... Sorry for my 2 cents


I totally agree.
bennelong.bicyclist
sendepause wrote:
cane creek wrote:
@synchromesh @bennelong.bicyclist, My Facebook page is publicly accessible however id be deeply disturbed if you posted my family photographs on this forum.

I'm pretty sure people put information on that sheet because it was in a part of the web only people in the know would be visiting, if they were aware people were going to post it on Muffwiggler i doubt they would of left their details on that document.


This is the main reason why bennelong.bicyclists action disturbs me the most. He stepped over a few "internet / social" boundaries. People accepted him in to a private group on facebook, starts waving the finger that everything is wrong. Then trows deliberately all the addresses of members on the internet by putting the link to the spreadsheet on Muff's. If privacy is so much a concern of you, dear sir, why in gods name have you done this?

I have a lot of respect for his work as a programmer (and in that his work for the community), and his concerns about copyright etc is fair. But i think these actions are a step to far... Sorry for my 2 cents


I removed the link to the spreadsheet assign as soon I realised there were full residential addresses in it - they aren't visible unless you scroll to the extreme right, and I honestly didn't see them when I first looked at the document. However, the URL for the spreadsheet was sent to me by email BEFORE I asked to join the Facebook group, and I was unaware that it was in any way "private" - until the fact that it contained personal details was pointed out to me. I don't apologise for bringing the fact that this is not a very good way to manage private data to the attention of the Facebook group concerned. Nor do I apologise for suggesting in that Facebook group that it is good practice to ask copyright holders whether they mind the sale by a third party of large numbers of PCBs for their design, especially when the copyright holder has licensed the design under a license which does not permit commercial use (regardless of whether it is for-profit or not).
cane creek
bennelong.bicyclist your an intelligent guy, I know what you were doing.
synchromesh
In the interests of full disclosure, I (John Pallister) am a member of the Facebook PCB group buy group (409 members and counting) and early on I put together a Google Docs spreadsheet that collected information and links about the Mutable Instruments modules, primarily as a resource for myself and others in the group who would be buying MI PCBs. The link to this spreadsheet is in my .sig below.

This spreadsheet also contains links back to the Facebook group and to the various group buy spreadsheets that have come up since March; again, this is provided to help the group members. My point is that to regard this information as necessarily particularly private when people have entered it themselves onto what are clearly publicly-accessible web pages is naïve at best. If people would be "deeply disturbed" to see content they've posted reappear elsewhere then the only safe approach is not to post it at all.

bennelong.bicyclist's posting of a link to the group buy spreadsheet here is no more malicious than my having a link to a link to it in my .sig. And if people don't like him asserting the rights of the creators of the IP in question (especially since he is one of them himself) and trying to verify that everyone involved understands and is trying to respect those rights, I think that says more about us than it does about him.
webboy
(deleted) See below
bennelong.bicyclist
webboy wrote:
However, the bottom line for me is that there are nice ways of going about informing people, and then there's acting like a self-appointed open source cop with an attitude. He is good at sounding polite, and factual, but it's clearly thinly veiled self-righteous contemptuousness. I somehow had this image in my head of this cool guy building orange modules and sharing awesome code. Now I just see an awesome coder, period. Kind of disappointing. I will still thank you for your work and generosity Timmy, that you deserve.


I am sorry to have disappointed you. And BTW I am not an awesome coder, as my work colleagues constantly remind me every time they look at my code - and that's not false modesty.

I suppose I have been disappointed too, by the repeated hostility each and every time I have raised what I thought were reasonable questions or expressed what I thought were supportable opinions and positions on how open-sourced material can and should be used (can and should being separate issues, both important) - and not just in this thread.

Anyway, all this has given me, and others with whom I collaborate on open-source synth stuff, some serious pause for thought.
webboy
FWIW I suddenly realized what my issue is with you Timmy. It's simple - I'm pretty pissed off about you- 1) posting peoples names and linking to our FB group / spreadsheet etc. here, and 2) joining our FB group just to investigate what's going on and leaving a day or two later, presumably because you got whatever it is you wanted. To me that's just not very considerate behaviour. You could have easily said everything you wanted to say without getting that specific.

The first post, I deleted, but since you quoted it, I have to live with it being out there. That's fine. Regardless, I do need to apologize. I should have kept my opinions to myself and just said what I really wanted to say in the first place.

Make no mistake, I'm not backpedalling because of anything you said, I just realized that I was actually attacking you, and that made me think twice. So again I apologize for lashing out and not just speaking my mind.
webboy
And by the way Timmy, don't you think there might be a reason for all the hostility? I don't know what you're pausing to think about, but there's something. I did not mean that as an attack or to be nasty either. I'm just saying - as usually is the case, this is a two-way street.
Dogma
Yes he rides a mighty high horse does BB.......a simple "im sorry- i made an error" would be the obvious, reasonable reply but instead we get a parade of excuses, none of which are exactly relevant here
.....
n167tx
Now its working 100%
This thing makes everything sounds beautiful.
Thanks for the support. Love you all

[/img]
cane creek
n167tx wrote:
Now its working 100%
This thing makes everything sounds beautiful.
Thanks for the support. Love you all

[/img]


Superb, like i said on Facebook you've climbed the mountain and i bet the view is beautiful.
koerby
n167tx wrote:
Now its working 100%
This thing makes everything sounds beautiful.
Thanks for the support. Love you all


Btw, what was the reason for the low sound issue?
av500
n167tx wrote:
Now its working 100%
This thing makes everything sounds beautiful.
Thanks for the support. Love you all

[/img]


LED rings ftw! applause
n167tx
koerby wrote:

Btw, what was the reason for the low sound issue?


Nothing really.
I just had to solder the rest of the jacks.
Just the Firmware was the annoying thing.
Thanks again marcus.

av500 wrote:

Btw, what was the reason for the low sound issue?


we need more LED rings
smile
ehafh
av500 wrote:
n167tx wrote:
Now its working 100%
This thing makes everything sounds beautiful.
Thanks for the support. Love you all

[/img]


LED rings ftw! applause


this is awesome, very inspiring.
i'm buying some from the pcb group buy and i'm determined to make at least 1 functional.
i've got a lot of training to do but i'm down for the adventure.

thumbs up
nicdro
there are a couple of questions left for me:
- which lightpipe size is correct? 5mm?
- what are these pads called "AGND, AGND-OPT, DGND, PG2, PG3, PG5, PG6"
so to speak what do i do with them?
thanks for all your posts! we're not worthy

Edit: And are the Kingbright LEDs the same as the Hebeil? There is a 13$ difference...
koerby
Quote:

- what are these pads called "AGND, AGND-OPT, DGND, PG2, PG3, PG5, PG6"


I assume these pads are for the In-Circuit test during the end of line in the production.
On final Pcb nothig is populated.
d.simon
agnd and dgnd are where analog and digial ground are connected.
analog ground is used on the analog side of the codec, and possibly some of the I/O buffering on that side
nicdro
d.simon wrote:
agnd and dgnd are where analog and digial ground are connected.
analog ground is used on the analog side of the codec, and possibly some of the I/O buffering on that side

so nothing to place here as koerby mentioned?
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Tech DIY Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next [all]
Page 6 of 10
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group