If someone else have received that new biscotti driver. I have current 17mm version with 4 modes and will be interesting if we can just upgrade it the firmware. I supposed that biscotti firmware is ported to another micro different from Attiny series.
Ok I will made some close up pictures with my Andonstar micro and will post them soon. But I think marks on micro and transistors was laser trimmed. Also from Convoy store listing we can see markings of transistors but the MCU is it without it. Also it have 10 pins compared to 8 pins of Attiny so the Biscotti firmware is most likely ported to another MCU family.
Biscotti is distributed under GPLv3 license.
This license means that you Simon (as the seller of drivers) are required by law to distribute the sources. Not just the generic biscotti that was the base for you but the exact one that you distribute on your drivers, complete with any changes that were done to port it to that MCU. That is - unless you receive a more free license from ToyKeeper.
Yeah, that driver manufacturer sounds a bit… interesting. Knowing the model of an MCU doesn’t sound particularly secret given every other driver I’ve seen has all the markings on them.
Usually it's easy to trace where VCC and Ground get connected to the MCU, and that, along with the package and pins, can narrow down the choices of MCU's. PIC's are usually one config for VCC/Grnd, different from Atmel's.
It's kind of despicable what's going on here - open source firmware running on proprietary hardware, where secrecy seems to be the goal. Do they really think they have something so special and unique, they want to copy protect the design but use someones else's firmware they don't have to pay for? Of course we know there's lots of stolen ideas/designs there - it's the wild wild west, but a simple flashlight driver? I dunno...
As I understand it, the Chinese electronics market is incredibly competitive, with so many firms making parts for each other and then selling them at a premium to one or discounting the others. Some manufacturers sell to only certain companies with the promise their identity is kept secret, otherwise other competitors might get wise and copy the design or undercut them on pricing. If you’ve ever opened up products from different manufacturers, you get an idea of this. An LG vs Memorex versus a Coby portable DVD player,for example. The LG will have better quality control, probably some better design (more SMD vs through hole) with better parts. The other brands might have cheaper plastics, more theough hole with bodging and solder flux, etc. However, the same company might supply ICs or parts to all the big OEMs. In China everything is counterfeited or copied (even flashlights folks).
Selling the driver without being able and willing to provide the source code of the version of the Biscotti firmware running on it is copyright infringement unless ToyKeeper has specifically given Convoy permission to sell it without providing the source code. Providing the source code for a version that doesn’t run on this MCU is not sufficient.
That does not, strictly mean that the make and model of the MCU has to be disclosed, but it’s probably easy enough to determine from the source code and its physical layout.
I have not given Convoy any special licenses. If this product ships without providing full source code, it will probably be a license violation, and Convoy would lose the right to sell anything based on my code.
It is not difficult to satisfy, and usually costs nothing. It is a “share and share alike” style license, meaning that anyone who distributes a compiled version (including derivatives) must also provide the complete source code for that same version, under the same license, retaining all the original copyright marks.
Usually people satisfy the license by doing the following:
Publish a message somewhere prominent stating that the product uses copyrighted code released under the GNU Public License v3 (GPLv3).
Include information about how to get the exact source code used in the product. If it is an unmodified version, a link to the upstream code works. Or if it’s modified, they must find a way to publish the version they used.
That info generally goes on the product page and/or in the included paper manual. Ideally both:
The license applies to anyone who distributes the code in a compiled form, which includes companies who sell products based on the code. In other words, it applies to every vendor and reseller. So it’s a good idea to put the information in a printed manual which ships with the product, because that means the vendor doesn’t have to know or care about the license.
Even if the license info is in the manual, it is also a good idea to include the license info on the original manufacturer’s product page too. This allows people to verify the license is being fulfilled, which means I don’t have to bother the manufacturers with messages like this one.
The concept of “trade secret” is completely incompatible with the concept of free software. The whole point is that nothing is secret — anyone can use it however they want, as long as they make sure the same freedom is passed on to others.