Topics

locked A public message to Hugen


OwO
 

Hello, on behalf of the NanoVNA V2 hardware design team we have to announce that from today on we can no longer permit you to use our hardware design. To avoid giving you unnecessary trouble we will allow you to continue to sell off your existing inventory, but we ask that you cease production of any hardware that uses our PCB layout design from today on.

I understand that this notice is not legally binding because PCB layouts are not covered by copyright. However, we believe that vendors who use our design work and profit from it should respect the wishes of the original developers. We generally permit all vendors to use our design without any royalties, and only very rarely under extenuating circumstances would we rescind permission. However, the events in the past few months forces us to make this difficult decision. You are always free to develop your own layout design from scratch, or to partner with other engineers to develop alternative designs.

Thank you and best of luck with your 6GHz VNA efforts.

(for anyone else reading this, the backstory is here: https://groups.io/g/NanoVNAV2/message/30)


aleks07111971@...
 

Your words are legally null and void!


Stephen Laurence
 

Dear Gabriel,

I am sorry to hear your announcement.

The whole nanovna movement has transformed my participation in radio and electronics, which has spanned 60 years. I would never have experimented with any of the more traditional “ home” vnas.

I have been so taken by the device concept that I currently own four altogether (one original nano and the three main V2 devices. I opened one up yesterday to investigate installing emi absorber, and was amazed again at the PHYSICAL creation of the core board.

The 6ghz device is probably no-go for me as it is a bit big (physically) for the pocket and needs a computer. Also I have little need for 6ghz.

I wish your team well, and hope your future devices are sucessful and not tooooo expensive.

Steve L. G7PSZ


Peter Ide-Kostic <on7yi.pik973@...>
 

This is very much understandable and unavoidable given the way the nanovna
v2 story developed.

Going for open hardware makes sense as long as the product gets improved
by people/organisations who copy it so user gets a better experience and
the size of the market also eventually grows.

The V2 is not a copy of the V1, except at the conceptual level, it is a
fresh pcb design resulting in outstanding technical specifications compared
to the V1. The hardware could have been closed but it was kept open with
the hope that the product would be further improved by the community.

Open hardware should be more about colaboration than competition, everybody
should enjoy the ride including of course the original designer of the
product.

Unfortunately it did not happen with the Nanovna v2. I own a genuine model
and two clones so I know what I am talking about. The clones are copy paste
of
the original design: there was no attempt to further improve the dynamic
range or isolation, the sweeping speed, the return loss improvement on
port 2 , the frequency range, etc... .

It was also suggested at some early stage of the V2 saga on some forums
that cloners of the V2 offer the functionality to swap port and 1 and 2 to
ease measurements of the 4 s parameters but it did not happen.

The only benefit for users was a somewhat lower price compared to the
genuine model. On the other hand, the return loss above 1.5 Ghz of port 2
of the two clones that I own is not as good as the one of the genuine
model. Quality control of clones seems to be an issue. One of my two
clones was shipped initially defective by the way... .

The designer of the V2 didn't draw any fruits of his open hardware
strategy, he only faced harsher competition, what happens was just
unavoidable, expecting the hardware to remain open would be unreasonable
very unfortunately. It could have happened differently though.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2020, 07:51 , <aleks07111971@yandex.ru> wrote:

Your words are legally null and void!






Dragan Milivojevic
 

I/m going to keep repeating this ad nauseam:
This has nothing to do with Open Source.

For those that this fact is non obvious:
Hugens Nano has been cloned for ages now and he
did not publish board files and yet cloners produce
carbon copies of his version.



On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 13:02, Peter Ide-Kostic <on7yi.pik973@gmail.com>
wrote:

This is very much understandable and unavoidable given the way the nanovna
v2 story developed.

Going for open hardware makes sense as long as the product gets improved
by people/organisations who copy it so user gets a better experience and
the size of the market also eventually grows.

The V2 is not a copy of the V1, except at the conceptual level, it is a
fresh pcb design resulting in outstanding technical specifications compared
to the V1. The hardware could have been closed but it was kept open with
the hope that the product would be further improved by the community.

Open hardware should be more about colaboration than competition, everybody
should enjoy the ride including of course the original designer of the
product.

Unfortunately it did not happen with the Nanovna v2. I own a genuine model
and two clones so I know what I am talking about. The clones are copy paste
of
the original design: there was no attempt to further improve the dynamic
range or isolation, the sweeping speed, the return loss improvement on
port 2 , the frequency range, etc... .

It was also suggested at some early stage of the V2 saga on some forums
that cloners of the V2 offer the functionality to swap port and 1 and 2 to
ease measurements of the 4 s parameters but it did not happen.

The only benefit for users was a somewhat lower price compared to the
genuine model. On the other hand, the return loss above 1.5 Ghz of port 2
of the two clones that I own is not as good as the one of the genuine
model. Quality control of clones seems to be an issue. One of my two
clones was shipped initially defective by the way... .

The designer of the V2 didn't draw any fruits of his open hardware
strategy, he only faced harsher competition, what happens was just
unavoidable, expecting the hardware to remain open would be unreasonable
very unfortunately. It could have happened differently though.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2020, 07:51 , <aleks07111971@yandex.ru> wrote:

Your words are legally null and void!










Dave Daniel
 

Please do not continue to contribute to this thread. This is a provaye matter between OwO and Hugen. Further public discussion of this matter will be shut down quickly.

DaveD (moderator)

On Oct 4, 2020, at 08:52, Dragan Milivojevic <d.milivojevic@gmail.com> wrote:

I/m going to keep repeating this ad nauseam:
This has nothing to do with Open Source.

For those that this fact is non obvious:
Hugens Nano has been cloned for ages now and he
did not publish board files and yet cloners produce
carbon copies of his version.



On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 13:02, Peter Ide-Kostic <on7yi.pik973@gmail.com>
wrote:

This is very much understandable and unavoidable given the way the nanovna
v2 story developed.

Going for open hardware makes sense as long as the product gets improved
by people/organisations who copy it so user gets a better experience and
the size of the market also eventually grows.

The V2 is not a copy of the V1, except at the conceptual level, it is a
fresh pcb design resulting in outstanding technical specifications compared
to the V1. The hardware could have been closed but it was kept open with
the hope that the product would be further improved by the community.

Open hardware should be more about colaboration than competition, everybody
should enjoy the ride including of course the original designer of the
product.

Unfortunately it did not happen with the Nanovna v2. I own a genuine model
and two clones so I know what I am talking about. The clones are copy paste
of
the original design: there was no attempt to further improve the dynamic
range or isolation, the sweeping speed, the return loss improvement on
port 2 , the frequency range, etc... .

It was also suggested at some early stage of the V2 saga on some forums
that cloners of the V2 offer the functionality to swap port and 1 and 2 to
ease measurements of the 4 s parameters but it did not happen.

The only benefit for users was a somewhat lower price compared to the
genuine model. On the other hand, the return loss above 1.5 Ghz of port 2
of the two clones that I own is not as good as the one of the genuine
model. Quality control of clones seems to be an issue. One of my two
clones was shipped initially defective by the way... .

The designer of the V2 didn't draw any fruits of his open hardware
strategy, he only faced harsher competition, what happens was just
unavoidable, expecting the hardware to remain open would be unreasonable
very unfortunately. It could have happened differently though.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2020, 07:51 , <aleks07111971@yandex.ru> wrote:

Your words are legally null and void!