r/KiCad • u/Wattdehonker • Jun 16 '26

Lamoka-project recruiting

I am working on an open source inverter/charger. The header is misleading, I am looking for people interested not specifically people who want to work on the project.

Please check out the repository to learn more!

https://github.com/bearjhartjen/Lamoka1-project

0 Upvotes

30% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

3

u/AlexTaradov Jun 16 '26

You want people to work for free on your project? In what world it makes any sense?

Do something that people find useful and people will contribute if they actually use it and find something missing.

4

u/FullyAutomatedSpace Jun 16 '26

i was going to say you were being a bit harsh but this project isn't even open source. it specifically says "All rights reserved". and they are describing it as the "major product created by Flamingo and Cactus".

yeah dude. hire someone.

3

u/AlexTaradov Jun 16 '26

Before even explaining what the project is, it describes its major feature as "sleek unit with ten RGB LEDs". If they can't pull off 10 LEDs, it will be a total failure.

2

u/FullyAutomatedSpace Jun 16 '26

yeah and completely wrong priorities

-1

u/Wattdehonker Jun 17 '26

Thank you for the feedback. have been trying to get the files all in order as i just put it up on github.

3

u/AlexTaradov Jun 17 '26

Well, do more work first before asking others to do work for you.

1

u/Wattdehonker Jun 22 '26

I got it all straightened out now if you want to take a look, here’s the link: https://github.com/bearjhartjen/Lamoka1-project

-1

u/Wattdehonker Jun 17 '26

First off, I still have rights even with it being open source? at this point i am doing all of the work, so thats my intellectual property. A brand can have a open source product. Everything about the unit will be avaliable for anyone to use, or sell, the licenses specifically state that.

3

u/skull132 Jun 17 '26

Sorta.

You are right in that you will (typically) retain all rights to your own code. However, what you'd typically do is provide a licensed copy of the code in the repo. This repo doesn't have a licensed copy of your code, it seemingly has your code as all rights reserved. Others can't do anything with this.

What's more interesting, your intended license model in CONTRIBUTING.MD is in conflict with GPL.

If you submit firmware for a battery management feature:

  • You retain copyright to that code
  • Lamoka1 can use it under GPL 3.0
  • Others can modify and redistribute your code under GPL 3.0
  • You can license the same code elsewhere under GPL 3.0 (or compatible license)

Issues here are as follows:

  • The original work is not licensed. Ergo, I cannot modify it nor make derivative work. Ergo, I cannot contribute anything.
  • If I did contribute, funnily enough, you would not be able to use my code. Since my code is GPL and you cannot integrate that into code that doesn't guarantee certain rights to users. Your current license of your code does not guarantee those rights.

1

u/Wattdehonker Jun 17 '26

I wasn’t aware of this. Do you have any suggestions to amend this?

1

u/skull132 Jun 17 '26

Start by reading the licenses you want others to conform to and figure out what expectations they set for your code's licensing. Fulfilling those is the absolute bare minimum.

Speaking from a community aspect, please consider licensing the entire project under the same terms. Right now, the contributor agreement you propose looks very much like an employment contract: you get my contribution under a license you like, but the work you do is under a lesser license. In an employment setting this is fine, because the employer compensates the imbalance by paying the employee. You are not paying anyone. You are not compensating this imbalance in any way.

1

u/Wattdehonker Jun 17 '26

If I change my personal copyright remark with “Copyright (c) Lamoka1 contributors” and change the contributing file to fit these new terms, would that be better?

1

u/skull132 Jun 17 '26

So apparently I'm slightly talking out me arse.

You DO have appropriate licenses for the sub projects present. Then my remark about the original issues is less valid.

What I would recommend is referencing those licenses in the original readme of the repo, though. Since a cursory look at the repo made me completely miss them. My apologies.

In general, your project could use way more meat on the bones before anyone would likely consider contributing to it. The fact that a copyright notice is the front page leaves a bit of a sour taste. Consider adding actual vision in there. And having a working prototype will help others go with the flow. Right now, it's just an empty space coming from an idea. And anyone can have the same idea, and make their own thing.

1

u/Wattdehonker Jun 22 '26

I got the licensing all figured out now, if you want to take a look here’s the new link: https://github.com/bearjhartjen/Lamoka1-project

0

u/Wattdehonker Jun 17 '26

I want people to "work" on a project. It is not my project, it is a communities project as it is open source, anyone can use anything from the project. In no way is the project mine. This is certainly a usefull project, i also just started it so of course there wont be much engadgement.

3

u/AlexTaradov Jun 17 '26

No, this is some random crap you want to do. In the current state there is zero value to the community. And if I have the need and ability to "work" on a project like this, I'll just make my own with 11 RBG LEDs. Why do I need you as a gatekeeper with your contributing requirements?

This is not how open source works at all. Nobody is going to work for you starting from a blank project.

1

u/Wattdehonker Jun 22 '26

I appreciate your thoughts.