Well this is turning into an interesting thread!
So first my comment on yaapu copying the look of C&T I still think is a valid comment. Here are a few of the previous screens:
(This is the teensy project that I was one of the developers on)
(more on this one later)
These screen designs are clearly very different. Yes, there are lots of different ways to design a UI.
Here is the C&T screen:
Here is the yaapu screen:
One is clearly a derivative copy of the other. For an opensource developer to copy the look and feel of a commercial project has probably been done hundreds of times before, it’s a natural thing to do. Mostly this is pointed out politely (as I think I did, hopefully), and usually the developer will adapt it so it has it’s own design and is no longer a problem. Which is what yaapu started to do, calmly and politely. This is a good process.
In the meantime however, lots of random handwaving and pitchforks have appeared that have not helped at all, and C&T have waded straight in with a takedown notice and dcma complaint to github and had the project taken down. As someone else pointed out, that’s not the way to make friends and influence people. This is not a good process, and none of this does any good to anyone involved, or the project/ecosystem as a whole.
Where it starts to get really interesting is @mpaperno assertion that the c&t code is a direct derivative of his work, which is GPL, along with documented proof. It sounds like there is enough smoke to suggest a fire, and C&T should answer this one way or another. If this is the case, C&T should release their code under the GPL, as required (note this still doesn’t stop them from charging for it, which is fine and lots of companies do that).
I will note that having read through the github issues, pull requests and related forum threads, I’m surprised C&T ever bothered to get this far. There’s so much negativity against the idea of someone trying to a) add improvements, while b) making money, as if capitalism is the enemy of opensource. There are some absolutely ludicrous statements around that earlier in this thread and in github. For those that believe that, open your eyes and welcome to reality. People need to make a living, and people who make a living are in a far stronger position to contribute to opensource. That’s how successful opensource projects work, that you all consume for free. How do you think this project (Ardupilot) gets paid for? It’s certainly not free to develop and run and C&T are one of the partners that contribute to the development of this amazing autopilot that you all get for nothing (http://ardupilot.org/about/Partners), as well as making a significant improvement to the opensource code. That works by you paying for their commercial offerings (IN AN ENTIRELY OPTIONAL FREE MARKET WAY), in the same way that you pay for any number of the commercial autopilots, gps units, frames, drones, subs etc that contribute to this project and enable you to still build drones yourself for very little money, rather than having to buy an off the shelf DJI unit. If you don’t like the product, don’t buy it, but at the same time don’t try to kill it, as all you’re doing is killing the wider project and community.
ps - I have absolutely no bias or attachment to any of these projects, other than the odd very minor code improvements.