search

crsf-wg / crsf

MIT License
114 stars 7 forks source link

Naming and potential legal implications #2

Open DzikuVx opened 8 months ago

DzikuVx commented 8 months ago

This is a copy of https://github.com/tbs-fpv/freedomtx/issues/26#issuecomment-1859215785

A note from my side. To make is swift, in a series of bullet points ;)

  1. I'm all onboard for extending the CRSF specification and practically converting it into an open standard
  2. INAV will have no problems adopting a new/extended protocol, however I can't promise swift development. You all know how open source works and when devs have time to do stuff
  3. However, I'm convinced that the new/extended protocol should NOT be called CRSF. Reason is quite simple, CRSF name is tightly coupled with the TBS and brand of Crossfire. And this opens an area of questions on how much right to the name and protocol itself TBS has. Especially to the name CRSF itself. Even if it's not, the name CRSF should be treated as reserved name to avoid any legal implications. I'm not saying there will be legal implications but as long as TBS does not officially opens the protocol and the CRSF name, it have to threated as tightly coupled to the TBS. And this, considering the fact, that ELRS, BF, Ardupilot and INAV and open source projects, should be a crucial aspect. Either everything is open and name is not connected to any other legal entity, or it's not open at all
raphaelcoeffic commented 8 months ago

However, I'm convinced that the new/extended protocol should NOT be called CRSF. Reason is quite simple, CRSF name is tightly coupled with the TBS and brand of Crossfire. And this opens an area of questions on how much right to the name and protocol itself TBS has.

This is indeed a difficult question. Thx a lot for your input. @tbs-trappy has been invited to this repository, and we will see how that develops.