Flaccid Ostrich - Floppy Emu compatible clone

eric said:

Sharing a new project by https://social.chinwag.org/@hkz

Flaccid_Ostrich

Flaccid Ostrich is a Floppy Emu compatible clone, built to be buildable with only THT components (or with a very limited number SMD parts at worst)!

codeberg.org

Click to expand...

Yikes. In bird culture, this is considered a dick move.

Floppy Emu was always a case where you're paying for the time and effort to R&D than the hardware itself. While it'd be fantastic if Floppy Emu was open source, it isn't, and it's morally dubious at best to use Steve's firmware and PLD code. This isn't screwing over a faceless corporation - for example, Saleae Logic and clones thereof - but a fellow hobbyist. Kind of gross to reverse engineer his schematic and post it publically (presumably) without first asking permission.

I don't own a Floppy Emu personally as I don't use floppies enough to justify the cost, but I respect the energy it took to create and debug it. It's Steve's prerogative to sell his work.

this is somewhat nothing new im think!

I have seen many of clones of Floppy EMU on Chinese website! And ebay!

One integrated into Apple ][-Card even

eric said:

You can see hkz's reasoning on his mastodon threads and the people not in the US such as him having to pay $100+ for shipping.

Click to expand...

"Because a thing is expensive, I should be allowed to steal it"?

eric said:

FloppyEMU has clones already

Click to expand...

"Because other people are doing something bad, I should be able to, too"?

Honestly, I am really grossed out by the community's welcoming response to this. This is not some victimless crime like distributing abandonware from defunct companies that is no longer commercially viable anyway. This directly hurts BMOW's bottom line - this is taking money from a small-time creator's pocket. Would you stiff someone who sold you something on this forum? Would that be okay?

And I don't use the term "victimless crime" arbitrarily, either - this is actually illegal. Not that anyone's ever going to get prosecuted for this, but just because something (the Floppy Emu firmware images, in this case) is posted publicly and not paywalled or something, that doesn't give anyone the right to do whatever they want with it. I am quite sure BMOW's intention is that the firmware images and CPLD bitstreams are only to be used with devices purchased from himself. As such, using it on a cloned device is straight-up piracy.

eric said:

I dont care to argue "right" or "wrong"

Click to expand...

Sorry, but wasn't it you who created this thread? On a popular public forum? Promoting the distribution of this clone? You don't get to act like this is just a thing that happened that you don't have to take a position on. Make no mistake, you're not blameless, you're taking a side here. Just because you're never going to meet legal trouble for it doesn't mean it's okay.

Honestly, this whole affair is positively sickening to me, watching a fellow creator be victimized and see the community not merely shrug about it but celebrate it. Is this who we want to be? Are we not better than this?

Apparently not. Prove me wrong.

Given the difficulty of finding non-surface-mount parts, I got the impression this was just a hobbyist exercise, rather than commercial or a replacement. Maybe I misunderstood the purpose of this project.

I agree that it isn't fair to distribute copies of Steve's proprietary IP. However, I also support the right to reverse-engineer a schematic or write up an article on how something works. That's the backbone of our community.

Nevertheless, I want to reiterate how much I love my FloppyEMUs (I own three) and my continued financial support for Big Mess of Wires.

zigzagjoe said:

Kind of gross to reverse engineer his schematic and post it publically (presumably) without first asking permission.

Click to expand...

It's entirely gross.

Steve's firmware is the only reason this thing has any value at all.

David Cook said:

Given the difficulty of finding non-surface-mount parts, I got the impression this was just a hobbyist exercise, rather than commercial or a replacement. Maybe I misunderstood the purpose of this project.

I agree that it isn't fair to distribute copies of Steve's proprietary IP. However, I also support the right to reverse-engineer a schematic or write up an article on how something works. That's the backbone of our community.

Nevertheless, I want to reiterate how much I love my FloppyEMUs (I own three) and my continued financial support for Big Mess of Wires.

Click to expand...

Reverse engineering for the sake of personal understanding of how it works & performing repairs, etc is perfectly kosher IMO and AFAIK protected by law in the EU. Looking at what was done right and what could be improved in order to design a new floppy emulator is a great idea to make a better product. Publicizing a reversed schematic is more grey, depending on intended purpose, but perhaps justifiable under certain conditions. Similar for an discussion of how the firmware works.

Reverse engineering the device, fully redrawing the schematics, publishing BOM + gerbers with step-by-step instructions on how to program Steve's code to the final product? That doesn't happen by accident or happenstance, and it goes well beyond fair use. Pairing that release with "Feel free to donate to me!" ?! It's utterly reprehensible, and can't be read as anything but a deliberate attempt to encourage stealing Steve's work.

I am of the same mindset as Tashtari. "Someone else has already done it" and "The original product is expensive" ... those are reasons, yes, but two wrongs still don't make a right.

YMK said:

It's entirely gross.

Steve's firmware is the only reason this thing has any value at all.

Click to expand...

100% - "kind of" was very much sarcasm

If Steve hadn't put the CPLD bitstream in the firmware to ease supportability, this would not have been possible. Shame on him for making his product too easy to steal, I guess.

zigzagjoe said:

Reverse engineering the device, fully redrawing the schematics, publishing BOM + gerbers with step-by-step instructions on how to program Steve's code to the final product? That doesn't happen by accident or happenstance, and it goes well beyond fair use. Pairing that release with "Feel free to donate to me!"

Click to expand...

I was unaware of that. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Wow, that escalated quickly

Personally, I don't have enough perspective to take a position, but I would like to point out that the floppyemu presentation page mentioned this in 2012:

Floppy Emu is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license. You’re free to build one for personal use, or adapt and share the design for other non-commercial projects, but please don’t build a batch of Floppy Emus and sell them on eBay. Now with that out of the way, let’s get started!

It's easy to find mirrors of the page from that time, notably this one:


I don't know if the fact that I was under the CC license and then withdrew from it changes anything legally, but I wanted to bring this to your attention.

Nitram78 said:

Wow, that escalated quickly

Click to expand...

Given many members here create commercial and non-commercial modern solutions to retro electronics problems and uses, I can't say I'm surprised this was a bit of a touch paper!

That said, I do think it's a dangerous precedent to argue that because someone in China rips off a commercial product, or it has been done before in one form or another, it must be OK for anyone else to do it too. And while I understand the argument that puts the product in a sort-of-if-we-want-it-to-be public domain, what does it say that we are happy to undermine the work of an intellectual property owner, for the sake of getting the same thing elsewhere for cheap?

There is a question of what is or isn't legal, but for me, the question would be that if your work and skills are going to be ripped off by other people, what is the incentive for you to create your product in the first place?

Nitram78 said:

I don't know if the fact that I was under the CC license and then withdrew from it changes anything legally, but I wanted to bring this to your attention.

Click to expand...

This would depend on where you are, but taking the US model of intellectual property rights as a base, then Steve didn't legally abandon Floppy Emu to the public domain, but for a time he granted licence for others to use the design and his work under very specific circumstances. He then rescinded that licence. In the US schema, the 'maker' of the Flaccid Ostrich would be in breech of Steve's rights as IP holder if he used any definable part of Steve's hardware design, firmware or software - and there wouldn't be much of a 'fair use' argument to use as a defence, even if it is based on the CC licence product, since that was subsequently withdrawn.

I have respect for the position @eric outlines, since as a 'maker' himself, he's more qualified to judge than I am as a mere product user. However, BMoW is a commercial enterprise, and FloppyEmu one of its in-house commercial products. Personally, I'd respect that it is his right alone to decide how his intellectual property can be used.

I AM NOT A PATENT/TRADEMARK/COPYRIGHT LAWYER - LOL - Just a regular guy trying to make sense of CCO licensing haha!

The CC license clearly states that they are irrevocable meaning they cannot be changed or removed. BUT it also says that licensors can change the license or stop offering the product. To be clear, there are multiple CC licenses to choose from. The way this makes any sense to me (lol) is that the licensor can add an additional CC license to expand its use but not take away from it - they're non-regressive in other words.

What is also interesting is that the CCO recommends not to apply CC to software/firmware/source code specifically because the CC does not include verbiage specific to distribution of source code. They instead recommend using an actual software licensing process. Perhaps this is how that firmware is being used. Maybe that is a change that is inferred by BMoW removing the CC verbiage? I mean just like everything on the Internet, a CC once applied is forever but I could see a business leveraging a CC license for hardware and then applying a separate software license for firmware/code/software etc. From what I read, it seems like they are independent of eachother simply because the CC doesnt really speak to code/software dev per their licensing verbiage.

I get the community "circling the wagons" for one of their own but really - is it not the creators responsibility to protect patents via copyright (if desired) and prosecute intellectual property theft (again if desired) ? If they believe this to be an illegal use, BMoW has the optiopn to pursue legal compensation. Additionally, if known, the CCO would notify BMoW,

I don't think @eric was out of line for sharing a new option and if folks are judging him or those who liked his thread as " totally gross" because of a lifted firmware or whatever in this new product, IMO this is judgemental and carries its own dubious moral nature - considering we dont know if a separate software license is in play at this point - if not, then that is not clearly spoken to/defined in the CC license and potentially opens up legal use of said material. I mean the majority of us would have no idea myself included until I read up on it- we'd just see "hey cool new product for the retro community" and give it a thumbs up of support (as we should do).

Simply put we can speak with our dollars - we can choose who we align with and support those builders with our purchases and where we put our money. "You do you, and I'll do me and we'll move forward together" LOL. I think we can leave the moral judgment out of the picture on this one as CC/Copyright/licensing is extremely deep, murky & confusing AF frankly. Without a deeper understanding, CCO license verbiage reads like someone speaking out both sides of their mouth lol and is not easy straight up difficult to define and articulate clearly lol. Let BMoW sort this out if they want to. The last thing we need to do is judge eachother over this.

Frankly, none of us have a full picture to do so.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I feel quite comfortable saying that the fact that the Floppy Emu firmware was under Creative Commons in 2012 does NOT mean that every subsequent version is also released under the same license forever. If someone wants to use the 2012 Floppy Emu firmware to power a clone, fine, I won't say a word against it, but they'll be doing without some pretty key features - 1.44 MB disks, DCD hard disks, and probably a whole lot more besides.

This is not a gray area. Make no mistake: anyone using this clone as it's currently offered is doing something both illegal and wrong.

@Certificate of Excellence I find your statement "isn't it the creator's responsibility" to defend their intellectual property appalling. Is everything okay until you get hauled into court for it? Should a person do something just because they can get away with it? Absolutely we should be circling the wagons to protect one of our own. Absolutely we should be standing up and saying "this is wrong".

And absolutely we should NOT be looking at this as "a new option". Hey, here's another "new option": buy a BlueSCSI from one of the manufacturers, then file a chargeback saying it never arrived. Free BlueSCSI! Great! Let's all get right on it!

My understanding of the FloppyEmu licence in 2012 was that it was released for non-commercial uses - meaning, well, exactly that - and then only providing proper attribution is made.

I don't really see much in the way of 'proper attribution' and there is a whole other set of potential questions about the flaccid ostrich which would come into play, not the least of which is that the creator is asking for donations via Ko-Fi and the PCBWay project sponsorship. Possibly not rising to the level of commercial use, but a very dubious area.

There also can't be much doubt that the CC licence could be revoked or modified subsequently, otherwise there would be no option in the CC licencing agreement by which Steve/BMoW could subsequently revoke or modify it - which I recall he/they subsequently did. But realistically the law isn't just about the words but in it's 'common law' application too, and that means in this case that in many jurisdictions, a court could decide that whatever the reason for revoking the licence, the cat was already out of the bag, so the IP no longer enforceable.

I'm not suggesting that @eric was in the wrong to post the thread - mostly for the reasons he gave - but I do think it is morally dubious (my morals, admittedly) to justify the flaccid ostrich project is OK on the basis that others have already done it, not least in China where there is a clear for-profit motive - which is strictly not permitted under the 2012 licence. As @Tashtari says; this is not a grey area.

Certificate of Excellence said:

The CC license clearly states that they are irrevocable meaning they cannot be changed or removed. BUT it also says that licensors can change the license or stop offering the product.

Click to expand...

It also says that 'This deed.... is not a license and has no legal value.'

Hi everyone, I’m Steve Chamberlin, the developer of the Floppy Emu, as well as of other retro-computer devices like the ADB-USB Wombat, Yellowstone disk controller, and ROM-inator. I was very disappointed to see a talented person putting effort into a straight-up clone of my work. This isn’t a good look for the retro-computer community, and it directly harms me and my family.

I won’t comment on the legality of the cloning effort, but the fact that it’s anonymous (at least I don’t see a name attributed anywhere) I think demonstrates that this person knows his actions are not ethical. There are plenty of competing drive emulator products out there, developed independently, and I have no problem with friendly competition. But this isn’t a competitor: it’s a simple clone whose only value comes from my design, my firmware, and the functions and features that I developed through literally thousands of hours of effort.

Some people have commented on the price of the hardware, and my response has always been that it’s priced where it’s worth my time and effort to develop and build and sell these products. The retro-computer community is small and sales volumes are low compared to traditional electronics markets. Without wanting to sound salty, if somebody believes they can develop and market an equivalent device for less, then please do and I think we would all appreciate it.

Right now this is just a DIY project template, but in a month it may be something you can buy ready-made on eBay or AliExpress, thanks to certain vendors in Asia who will jump on designs like this and will produce whatever sells, regardless of ownership questions. That will really hurt. I’m OK with being put out of business by something new and better, but not by being put out of business by my own work used against me.

If you agree with me that this project is unethical and ultimately harmful to the community, I think the best way to fight it is with public pressure to convince this person to reverse course. It’s more powerful when other people (not me) comment on the Twitter threads and forum posts about this stuff, and just politely remind folks that this is an unauthorized clone that rip-offs of someone else’s work and causes them harm. If this clone and others like it gain traction and acceptance, then the obvious result is that development of products like the Floppy Emu will slow or stop, and fewer such products will be created in the future for the retro-computer community.

Tashtari said:

I'm not a lawyer either, but I feel quite comfortable saying that the fact that the Floppy Emu firmware was under Creative Commons in 2012 does NOT mean that every subsequent version is also released under the same license forever. If someone wants to use the 2012 Floppy Emu firmware to power a clone, fine, I won't say a word against it, but they'll be doing without some pretty key features - 1.44 MB disks, DCD hard disks, and probably a whole lot more besides.

This is not a gray area. Make no mistake: anyone using this clone as it's currently offered is doing something both illegal and wrong.

@Certificate of Excellence I find your statement "isn't it the creator's responsibility" to defend their intellectual property appalling. Is everything okay until you get hauled into court for it? Should a person do something just because they can get away with it? Absolutely we should be circling the wagons to protect one of our own. Absolutely we should be standing up and saying "this is wrong".

And absolutely we should NOT be looking at this as "a new option". Hey, here's another "new option": buy a BlueSCSI from one of the manufacturers, then file a chargeback saying it never arrived. Free BlueSCSI! Great! Let's all get right on it!

Click to expand...

of course not @Tashtari - you are making rash hyperbolic judgments on those who you perceive as disagreeing with you which I do not appreciate. I stand by my assertion that it is BMoW's responsibility to pursue this - let me explain. The over arching point Im trying to make is that the courts are exactly the place where this should be pursued - legally. You, myself, Steve those here are not in a position to accurately understand the legal/illegality of this clone in regards to the irrevocable CC originally put in place. Steve opted not to even speak to the CC (which I get because its insane to read through) instead focusing on ethics and public outrage - which ok fine (folks should know regardless), however if he were to put the nail in the coffin and truly stop this, the courts are where he can potentially accomplish this goal and in doing so, set the legal precedent and protect his business and family's income. (Truthfully I hope he's already LLCd to separate & protect his private assets which I assume he has already). Strategically, it makes more sense to me to set the legal precedent now because flaccid dev guy might be the first but likely wouldn't be the last. Steve's work is out there - regardless of being ethically right or wrong we cant put that genie back in the bottle and legal counsel (patent/trade) would certainly break down the legalese word barf that is CC licensing so normal people like Steve can understand options and next steps. There are lawyers who specialize specifically in CCO licensing and their effect. What Im saying is it's Steves business, his passion, his work and part of his income stream for his family and I believe that he should aggressively protect that; pursue this person legally. Get some counsel on how/if the initial CC could impact him in that pursuit.

Public outrage might stop it here and social media etc and in doing so give everyone the warm n fuzzies, but that's not going to stop the problem which is the development and potential cheap manufacturing abroad of this clone. If that happens, people will buy it regardless because of simple economics and that puts Steve in a really bad spot.

No one is the enemy here. As a business person myself, I truly feel for him. I'm trying to first understand and second emphasize rational thought and next steps that would be truly effective in helping Steve maintain what is his.

First thought is legal counsel is never cheap. If Steve were to look at counsel to understand the reality of this situation (cost, time, expected outcome etc), Tinker Different can create a crowd fund and popular youtubers can put it out there. Bring visibility and skin in the game to help Steve figure it out a lasting strategy and way forward.

Certificate of Excellence said:

.....the courts are where he can potentially accomplish this goal and in doing so, set the legal precedent and protect his business and family's income....

Click to expand...

Well, not really, because it depends on where the FO developer is located. Steve can file anything his local state and/or federal law allows, but his reach through a US court is almost certainly limited at most to the US, and possibly just to his home state.

An injunction to prevent FO sales or distribution in his home state is likely the best he can get, which isn't really enforceable elsewhere. A cease and desist request can be written, but to whom, and where? (PCBWay and Ko-Fi might be good places to start).

Steve's point is absolutely right in that respect - it's primarily the public pushing back against this sort of activity which works best, not least because individuals and organisations involved in theft, even inadvertently, are really hard to trace on the internet, and outside jurisdictional boundaries, typically much harder to constrain.

Personally, in Steve's shoes, I'd find a good local lawyer to write cease and desist notices, backed by a threat to seek discovery of the FO developer - both PCBWay and Ko-Fi are going to have some records relating to him, and won't want to be dragged into a fight, so may well cut their ties to avoid it. But he's right to remind us that as consumers of the kind of product he (and many others) make for commercial gain, we have a lot more influence on the market than he or a lawyer does.

Or, of course, Steve could just give up and cease development of products, which means we all loose out because there's now solutions to get - or to rip off either.

@Certificate of Excellence - forgive my presumption, but I think your perception of BMOW's avenues of legal recourse is more than a little rose-tinted. He has options, yes, but they're few and not great. As he himself said and @Yoda echoed, the best way to deal with a case like this is community pressure. We should band together, agree that this clone is unequivocally a bad thing for all of us, and act accordingly.

Crowdfunding for legal assistance is an idea with some merit, but I'd much rather see the project stopped voluntarily. Not only should we not produce or use the clone ourselves, we should discourage others from using it and we should (via Mastodon, Youtube channels, whatever avenues are available) make every effort to make the cloner understand the harm they're causing and ask them to take down the project - not because some lawyer sent a statement on letterhead, but because it's the right thing to do.

As a creator myself (TashTalk, TashTwenty, TashRouter, and more), I love to build stuff for the community, and seeing anyone get on board with this clone business disgusts me and makes me not want to do something I love doing. That's why I'm so vehemently coming out against this. It's obviously not as personal as it is for BMOW, but it's still personal to me.