DIY Geiger Kits discontinued

Simomax wrote:

nzoomed wrote:

From what i can tell on his page, is that he is aware others are selling kits based on this design, which naturally he expected, given he published everything for anyone to build from scratch, but at the same time preferred people buy his kits which is to be expected, but he was not stopping anyone else from doing so.

Are you reading the same site as I am. I find no reference whatsoever to BroHogan 'expecting' others' to copy his design. Please show me where it says that. Also it clearly states the info on his website 'has references  to kits that have been discontinued and are no longer available' so it's not the latest model, so whats the point? You would be stealing someone else's IP, infringing copyright to produce boards that other people have to purchase and then they have to go out, scour the suppliers for all the components, and then build it to an old model, probably for much more in total than it would have for a kit, or some other counter. I don't think you have thought this through well enough. And, if someone was capable of doing all of that, they would also be capable of just buying another counter and dropping an ESP onto it. Have you ever just bought a board and then had to source all the parts yourself? How did that go? The last time I did that it was way costlier than just buying a built one due to having to purchase parts at three different places, all incurring their own shipping cost, and then there are minimum quantities. So If I just wanted say 2 resistors, I have to buy 50 as that is the minimum order, or I buy them individually from Ebay or somewhere and so for 2 resistors I may pay £1, but then with another £1-2 for shipping. Times that by all the components that are required and its a non-starter. It's uneconomical to just buy a board and then source components. The only time buying just a board works is if you have your own stock of components and then just have to buy a handful of the ones you don't have.

So will you be doing this and selling the boards? Or will you be collating, compiling and supplying kits, with instructions and support? Or have you not thought this through properly.

I understand the sentiment that you may want to give something to the community, or make something last some time longer, but it is pointless with the availability of other counters that do the same, or more (one of the reasons BroHogan is ceasing then), and, is illegal to use someone else's intellectual property.

 

Have you actually studied the schematic?
Its a pretty simple design, most of the work into this project is literally all the code on the chip itself which is open source.
All I see on the schematic is literally all the components that connect to the interface, i.e the LCD screen, one pin goes to the GM tube output, an LED, crystal oscillator, etc.
The only real electronics on this unique to the counter is the HT power supply, which since you are asking here is the link to his reference https://sites.google.com/site/diygeigercounter/technical/circuit-description
You see he gives credit to the design here https://forum.pololu.com/t/attiny26-geiger-counter-schematic-and-code/1212
This is for the HT supply for the GM tube, literally everything else is the work of the code on the chip iteslf.
Actually looking into it deeper, this project is virtually based entirely on this design but basically with a more powerful arduino performing the work.

All the other electronics on this schematic are just simple things common with any arduino project, a power supply/voltage regulator, crystal oscillator and any other supporting electronics.

So yes im quite within my rights to reproduce this work, im sure I could add any improvements as i see fit too, essentially I see the whole project as open source and as far as im aware it was sold to me as an open source project, not just the code only on the chip which is kind of pointless anyway if that was the intention.

The question is whether or not i can be bothered to do it right now, im working on a few things right now, but if there is enough interest I might look at doing it and publish the files, I was wanting to build another unit myself after all.
Im not interested in the money, would simply publish the files and anyone can order through pcbway, etc.
The only other thing I would do is put together a BOM that links to mouser or element 14.
Most of the parts can be had through one supplier.
Would be easier to do the more simple model as less work is involved, but first I will search for any other designs published as it does appear there are others have replicated his work.

Edit:
This is what he said on the subject here from his own words:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210309023705/https://sites.google.com/site/diygeigercounter/home "Knock-Offs:If "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" then I am truly flattered! But I should first define what I call a knock-off (clone is another word).From the beginning, the software I've written for the kit is open source, and the circuit is thoroughly defined. I did this thinking that people who wanted to build their own could reference what I have. Of course there were some who just wanted to sell a kit, and I expected they would build on my ideas by adding their own ideas and create something new and different. This has happened in some cases. However, there are some who apparently just want to "cash in" by taking the design, software, hardware and even the documentation and the name, and adding little if anything to the project. These, I call "knock-offs" or more politely "clones". If you want to see a fun video on this subject check out EEVblog #333 - Unwritten Rules of OSHW .Have you been reading "Sour Grapes" ? Honestly, not really - that's just the way it is. Should you buy a clone? Of course that's up to you. My only advice is that you consider the differences. Looking at what is here should help you make the best choice. I should be the last person on earth to point them out, but if you'd like my opinion on a particular point, let me know. No matter what, enjoy your Geiger counter. They are surprisingly interesting."

He probably would be happy to publish the files given that he has no intention to sell the kits for profit anyway.
I would probably tell him what I have planned anyway, again, im not interested in profit here, I just want to make it accessible for others to build their own.
Yes the radmon plus appears to have a more basic design, that being said looks pretty typical circuit for that sort of design.

As far as that link goes on the wayback machine, I went looking there because the page that i remembered at the time I purchased the kit was removed.

Just because the page was taken down does not change anything from a legal standpoint, im not sure what open source licence the code was even released under, he just says on that page that he released it as open source and he indicated he defined the circuit enough for people to reference the design should they want to build their own.
He was indicating that he naturally would rather people buy his kits and support his work rather than others who were profiting from it from their knock off kits and then goes to reference the "unwritten" rules of open source hardware.

The way i see it is he is happy for others to reproduce his work and contribute to it where they see fit and more importantly give him credit.

I think he would be happy to see the project continue given this.
So in some respects, even myself publishing my own iteration of the PCB and publishing the files is improvement or innovation, i want to make it possible for others to build their own and making a cad file available for others to tweak.

Ive already contributed to the project somewhat and open sourced a CAD file for the case of the unit which he has published on the page too.

Simomax wrote:

nzoomed wrote:

Just because the page was taken down does not change anything from a legal standpoint


 

Of course it does. If I have a web page stating that I have X, Y and Z for sale at $5 each, and then later I change that and have X & Y are $6 each, and Z is $8 each. Just because the old page has been archived by a 3rd party doesn't mean that customers can buy X, Y and Z for $5 each. That would never, ever, ever wash in a court of law.

The same is said for software licences. If every last deleted word was still enforceable, then people (the software writers) couldn't change their licensing agreements. Just because it was written once, doesn't mean it has meaning after it has been deleted. The same would apply for 'buy one, get one free' offers. Once the offer has finished the wording removed, just because someone may have a photo or other evidence of what was once, it can't be used to get that offer forever. That's ludicrous. If what you say is true, then I can still demand a Philips HiFi system from the 60's. What do you think would happen if I contacted Philips and said 'You know those HiFi's you sold back in the 60, you know, the one in this old Practical HiFi magazine [shows old ad in 1967 Practical HiFi], you once wrote that you sold them, so sell me one, cos that's the law. Just because you took the advert down doesn't mean you can't sell them anymore cos I have an old ad here, that says you do.' It's utter nonsense, really. Ask a lawyer what they think.


 

Thats incorrect, you cant just release something into the public domain as open source and freely give people permission to reproduce and then turn around and say I no longer am allowing this.
Besides, this page was only taken down as a consequence of him discontinuing the kits and he has not even published anything that says he no longer wishes people to reproduce this work.
People have and are continuing to reproduce this work and there are likely already forks of it in existence anyway, none of these are legally required to cease production simply because this page is no longer up, forks of the code are already all over github.

Now there are cases where some open source projects have forked and an older revision remains open source and later revisions are kept closed, memtest86 and memtest86+ is one such example, but even that comes into a gray area as that software will still contain open source code, but has closed source code that is incorporated into it. Again this depends on the type of open source licence that its released under, as some licences provide room for this, while others require that any revisions made have to be published freely as a requirement.

Edit:
Its released under the creative commons licence, as is published in the source code.

"LICENSE: Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
 * See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ for a full definition.
 * Some key features are:
 * - You are granted a royalty-free, non-exclusive, license to use and Share this Licensed Material
 *   in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only.
 * - Every recipient of this software automatically receives the same rights.  
 *   You may not impose any additional or different terms or conditions on this material.
 * - If You Share this material (including in modified form), you must retain the identification
 *   of the DIY Geiger, this copyright notice, and indicate this Public License,
 *
 * This program is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY implied or otherwise, and with no warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 * Do not remove information from this header.
 *
 * THIS PROGRAM AND IT'S MEASUREMENTS IS NOT INTENDED TO GUIDE ACTIONS TO TAKE, OR NOT
 * TO TAKE, REGARDING EXPOSURE TO RADIATION. THE GEIGER KIT AND IT'S SOFTWARE ARE FOR
 * EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT RELY ON THEM IN HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS!"