this project is not open source #244

New Issue

2026-01-08T18:56:20+08:00

si-open commented

2026-01-08 18:56:20 +08:00

(Migrated from github.com)

https://github.com/polhenarejos/pico-fido/issues/216

👍 3

polhenarejos commented

2026-01-08 18:59:09 +08:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This project is open source. The firmware code is published under an open-source license.

Some tools and applications provided by the author are distributed under different terms. This does not change the open-source status of the project itself.

Closing this issue as it does not report a technical problem.

This project is open source. The firmware code is published under an open-source license. Some tools and applications provided by the author are distributed under different terms. This does not change the open-source status of the project itself. Closing this issue as it does not report a technical problem.

👎 12

wlatendresse commented

2026-01-09 00:55:27 +08:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Parts of the project may be open source, but the following is a fact:

Without the community's bug reports, the project most likely wouldn't have reached its current level of maturity.
The change in licensing between the free commisioning website and the paid app, both of which are ultimately necessary for some stages of finalization, seems a bit dodgy, as this step was certainly not foreseeable for most people who contributed to the projects. Technically, PARTS of the whole may be open source, but in reality, users are forced to pay for the app (I'm not against paying per se, but rather the very poor way the process was handled and the lack of prior explanation of the plans), which wasn't the case initially when the project was still in its early stages. This kind of approach smells.
Alternatively, the maintainers could have communicated from the outset that a license change would occur at some point during development. I'm drawing my own conclusions, and more, which is what I intended to do anyway after seeing parts of the code, which I personally would consider moderately good at best. (I could now name specific sections of the CTAP code that I consider questionable, but that would probably be going too far; after all, it's not a truly free project, so why would anyone want to do that in such a case? Alternatives exist, and I'm sure others will emerge from the depths of the void.)
The behavior shown here unfortunately exacerbates the very problem with open source in general, which only leads to confusion and abandonment among most average users. Projects are forked, and only people with a lot of time can even keep track of all this. Open source itself suffers from precisely this behavior, even though the concept could and should be much more successful.

Parts of the project may be open source, but the following is a fact: 1. Without the community's bug reports, the project most likely wouldn't have reached its current level of maturity. 2. The change in licensing between the free commisioning website and the paid app, both of which are ultimately necessary for some stages of finalization, seems a bit dodgy, as this step was certainly not foreseeable for most people who contributed to the projects. Technically, PARTS of the whole may be open source, but in reality, users are forced to pay for the app (I'm not against paying per se, but rather the very poor way the process was handled and the lack of prior explanation of the plans), which wasn't the case initially when the project was still in its early stages. This kind of approach smells. 3. Alternatively, the maintainers could have communicated from the outset that a license change would occur at some point during development. I'm drawing my own conclusions, and more, which is what I intended to do anyway after seeing parts of the code, which I personally would consider moderately good at best. (I could now name specific sections of the CTAP code that I consider questionable, but that would probably be going too far; after all, it's not a truly free project, so why would anyone want to do that in such a case? Alternatives exist, and I'm sure others will emerge from the depths of the void.) 4. The behavior shown here unfortunately exacerbates the very problem with open source in general, which only leads to confusion and abandonment among most average users. Projects are forked, and only people with a lot of time can even keep track of all this. Open source itself suffers from precisely this behavior, even though the concept could and should be much more successful.

👍 14 ❤️ 2

Kat-09 commented

2026-01-14 03:43:33 +08:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I'm not one to point fingers... but seriously..? A bit aggressive if you ask me, can't even use the wayback machine to do this...
Though i guess it would make more money this way..🤷

I'm not one to point fingers... but seriously..? A bit aggressive if you ask me, can't even use the wayback machine to do this... Though i guess it would make more money this way..🤷 <img width="712" height="323" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/93ce2419-a0a5-4f73-b1de-33cef2746af8" />

👍 3

My1 commented

2026-01-15 01:42:27 +08:00

(Migrated from github.com)

was the old pico commissioner open source? if yes maybe there's someone who took a copy.

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: dearsky/pico-fido#244