Rune wrote:
" I'd have wished they'd contact me about it instead, but as it's open
source, they are of course free to use the code.
I may need to make sure they don't reuse the name, though, so there isn't
confusion about which version is which "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember edy555 having similar thoughts after Hugen started selling the NanoVNA based on his original open source design. For a brief history lesson, see posted comments from edy555 to Hugen below:
" Hi hugen,
I'm an original developer of NanoVNA.
When I knew that you made the clone of my project, I very surprised that
you made PCB from schematics, and as an enthusiast, I felt pleased with
your challenges such as frequency range expansion and your original pc
software.
However, I was annoyed that you sell your clone without any prior notice
to me. Though I had a plan to forge and sell my product, it becomes
difficult.
Furthermore, your act cause that your design material was stolen by other
clone makers, and quite many units were sold in aliex, ebay and also amazon.
Those include worse clone as you say. This is a worrying state of affairs I think,
and you might agree.
To distinguish any unexpected clones, I propose that you should change your
product name by adding a suffix such as NanoVNA-H from your name, and it
should be shown in the market and printed on your product.
And also I'd like to publish the name of qualified products, so customers
become able to avoid worse clone.
I hope you think about this issue seriously.
Regards,
edy555
Aug 13, 2019 "
Herb
