WheelLog Android App

[palachzzz]

@Javi Tuñon, please read the forum rules, section language: 

@Reciodvd, You can use usual font, I read all posts in this topic, 
I need more information about GT16 revisions if you have. I know that some GT16 works fine, some other - not work at all.

[cespedes]

On 8/20/2018 at 9:34 AM, palachzzz said:

Dreams come true, especially when you yourself are involved in their implementation
 

Version 2.0.15:
- Ninebot Z series support, without wheel settings control yet, only reading metrics.

Each user of Ninebot Z & WheelLog must say thanks to @Lukasz, thanks to the cooperation with him it became possible. He collected all the necessary data (which was also used to add Ninebot Z support to DarknessBot), and tested more than 20 alpha builds of the WheelLog 

WheelLog_20082018_2.0.15.apk

Fantastic news, thanks a lot!

Do you have the source code available somewhere?  I cannot find the latest versions in Github...

[palachzzz]

@cespedes, no, for some reasons I will no longer upload the sources to github, or any other open-source platform. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by palachzzz

[Marty Backe]

13 minutes ago, palachzzz said:

@cespedes, no, for some reasons I will no longer upload the sources to githab, or any other open-source platform. 

Oh oh. This is a bad sign. The original WheelLog was freely given to the community and when that author lost interest, the source code was available for people like you to continue the development. Now, if something happens to you or you lose interest in working on it, continued development and support will die.

I wonder what the "for some reasons" are?

[Slartibartfast]

5 hours ago, palachzzz said:

@cespedes, no, for some reasons I will no longer upload the sources.

I am shocked! What has happened?

I am an Android developer myself and was about to join the project with a view to adding Wear OS (previously Android Wear) support. Why is this project being closed to other developers?

[palachzzz]

@Marty Backe, I expected such a reaction.
Despite the fact that WheelLog was given to community freely, the WheelLog does not have an owner, it does not have any license information. Anyone can continue to develop it, but no one can put it into the PlayMarket without the owner. Community that is present in this forum (and also in other local forums) is only a small part of people using EUCs, the rest don't know anything about it, the version that is present in PlayMarket actually works only with Gotway wheels. Putting APK into the forum - is not best way of distibution. 
But the main reason to stop pushing source code on github - I don't want to find such WheelLog clones with my code: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.starbros.wheelinfo
So at the beginning of this year I decided to stop support WheelLog and start developing a new application. But the problem with Android 8, and the emergence of new EUCs forced me to postpone development of new app and return to support of the WheelLog for a while.
When you have nothing (like me year ago) WheelLog is good starting point, but not more.
In case I will lose interest in this, I'll push the source code to github.
 

[stephen]

wear OS would be cool ?

[Slartibartfast]

Can you at least push what you have done such that the community can continue the open source version?

If you want to work on your own project that's fine but please do make the work done to the actual WheelLog app itself available.

 

Thanks.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Slartibartfast

[Marty Backe]

33 minutes ago, palachzzz said:

@Marty Backe, I expected such a reaction.
Despite the fact that WheelLog was given to community freely, the WheelLog does not have an owner, it does not have any license information. Anyone can continue to develop it, but no one can put it into the PlayMarket without the owner. Community that is present in this forum (and also in other local forums) is only a small part of people using EUCs, the rest don't know anything about it, the version that is present in PlayMarket actually works only with Gotway wheels. Putting APK into the forum - is not best way of distibution. 
But the main reason to stop pushing source code on github - I don't want to find such WheelLog clones with my code: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.starbros.wheelinfo
So at the beginning of this year I decided to stop support WheelLog and start developing a new application. But the problem with Android 8, and the emergence of new EUCs forced me to postpone development of new app and return to support of the WheelLog for a while.
When you have nothing (like me year ago) WheelLog is good starting point, but not more.
In case I will lose interest in this, I'll push the source code to github.
 

Thanks for the explanation. And I hope you don't think that I don't greatly appreciate what you've been doing. I'm just thinking more long term and that's why I was concerned that WheelLog is going proprietary.

[Nils]

8 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Can you at least push what you have done such that the community can continue the open source version?

If you want to work on your own project that's fine but please do make the work done to the actual WheelLog app itself available.

(emphasis mine)

Wheellog is unfortunately not what is normally considered an open source application. I realize the distinctions here are perhaps hard to appreciate for software development laymen as the source is actually publicly available  (until some point ago at least), but open source applications ships with a license explicitly granting rights for everyone to read, modify and distribute off-shots of the original work. Wheellog's source on the other hand comes with no explicit licensing whatsoever, which means full copyright is retained and no grants are given for others to distribute or modify it.

This is since the original version published on Github and not due to any decisions made by @palachzzz's, but his later additions doesn't change this (and if anything complicates it further). This is very unfortunate and is the biggest issue for this app as I see it (if anyone is aware of any public announcement by the original author granting rights, or could get him to provide that now that would be great to hear by the way!). In order for this to be resolved we would need to have an open source license agreed to and announced/published by both the original developer and @palachzzz.

[Slartibartfast]

Sure, the original code could no doubt be considered "public domain" and there's no legal restrictions as to what can be done with material considered to be in the public domain, but still, I can't help but see it as a bit of a dick move. You know, to take what everyone thought was a community project, with strong community support, and prevent others from contributing (presumably) with a view to commercialise it certainly takes the shine of what I thought was a good and honest project.

And the original project clearly is Open Source, I mean the source is right there! The open source moniker was decided upon (rather than "Free Software") because having the source freely available is the central tenant of what it means to be "Open Source". To say software is not "Open Source" because it does not evoke a FOSS licence of some description is ridiculous. Sure public domain/WTFPL/etc licences don't legally enforce people share any work they contribute but that doesn't mean you can say it wasn't Open Source, I mean it clearly is.

As I say, it's fine to work on your own projects in tandem but don't pretend to be working for a community project than just decide you've done too much work to share it. I mean come on mate. By all means withdraw from the public effort if you wish but at least leave us what you've done such that we can continue the effort without you.

[Nils]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Sure, the original code could no doubt be considered "public domain" and there's no legal restrictions as to what can be done with material considered to be in the public domain, but still, I can't help but see it as a bit of a dick move. You know, to take what everyone thought was a community project, with strong community support, and prevent others from contributing (presumably) with a view to commercialise it certainly takes the shine of what I thought was a good and honest project.

And the original project clearly is Open Source, I mean the source is right there! The open source moniker was decided upon (rather than "Free Software") because having the source freely available is the central tenant of what it means to be "Open Source". To say software is not "Open Source" because it does not evoke a FOSS licence of some description is ridiculous. Sure public domain/WTFPL/etc licences don't legally enforce people share any work they contribute but that doesn't mean you can say it wasn't Open Source, I mean it clearly is.

As I say, it's fine to work on your own projects in tandem but don't pretend to be working for a community project than just decide you've done too much work to share it. I mean come on mate. By all means withdraw from the public effort if you wish but at least leave us what you've done such that we can continue the effort without you.

No, just publishing code does not make it public domain in any way, it's explicitly the other way around. And no, having code published does not make it open source in any established form of the term either (it's again not placed in public domain just through the act of publishing it). This not really unclear or a subject of debate, you can find this information all over the place if you search, e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-domain_software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

I'm guessing the original author published the software with the intent of making it freely available, etc., but unfortunately this is not AFAIK explicitly stated and so then here we are. Again, if there was any original announcement or similar somewhere this would come under a different light, so if anyone knows about anything along those lines it would be interesting.

I certainly wish it was different in this case, but as software developer with twenty years of experience with free and open software I wouldn't invest time in any project without any licensing as it wouldn't be free or open, no matter how much I personally would wish for it to be so. Note that this does mean that I say it's fine to do whatever with this, it's again not in any kind of public domain just by being published so any development or distribution (including that done by palachzzz) ends up in a legal quagmire.

 

[palachzzz]

@Slartibartfast, Let's move from lofty words to real deeds, see fork tree of original project, and let's check it one by one:


- Ask369 added Sony watch support, and managed to make a pull-request, which was approved by Jumpmaster.
- cedbossneo added Inmotion basic support, but did not approved to the original project, I took his branch for a basis
- juliomap added support for Tizen's watches and made a pull request in my branch which I approved
- MacPara found and fixed my bug and made several changes, that partially added into my branch, the other part I could not accept for various reasons (it add some features, but broke some other things)
All the rest of the people did nothing, did not return any changes to the WheelLog, and those mentioned above who have done something have disappeared from the forum and no longer appear (the period of activity of each of them is within a month).
Where is the fork of the person who posted the clone of the WheelLog into PlayMarket?
Where is the active community work you are talking about?
If someone really want to do something - he still can do it using 2.0.8 version that is still available on github, there is no significant changes in current version except Ninebot support. And they still can contact me, like people who did something for WheelLog, that helped me to add new wheels, or test it, or point me to some bugs.
 

Quote

As I say, it's fine to work on your own projects in tandem but don't pretend to be working for a community project than just decide you've done too much work to share it.

It's my work, and my free time, and let me dispose of it as I see fit, I may be wrong, but I do not pretend to do something for someone. I do the work and give the opportunity to use it by all without demanding anything in return. My annual experience of supporting the WheelLog says that people do not need the source code of the application, they need a working application.

Edited August 22, 2018 by palachzzz

[Chriull]

 

55 minutes ago, palachzzz said:

Where is the fork of the person who posted the clone of the WheelLog into PlayMarket?

That was @JumpMaster - Kevin Cooper in Google PlayStore: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cooper.wheellog 

55 minutes ago, palachzzz said:

Where is the active community work you are talking about?
If someone really want to do something - he still can do it using 2.0.8 version that is still available on github, there is no significant changes in current version except Ninebot support. And they still can contact me, like people who did something for WheelLog, that helped me to add new wheels, or test it, or point me to some bugs.

It's my work, and my free time, and let me dispose of it as I see fit, I may be wrong, but I do not pretend to do something for someone. I do the work and give the opportunity to use it by all without demanding anything in return. My annual experience of supporting the WheelLog says that people do not need the source code of the application, they need a working application.

Thanks for your work!

PS.: Some posts ago here was a discussion about the automatic upload of logs to google drive - as far as i remember this needs a signed apk (?from a registered developer?), so the app can authenticate with google drive...

[palachzzz]

34 minutes ago, Chriull said:

That was @JumpMaster - Kevin Cooper in Google PlayStore

I asked about this one:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.starbros.wheelinfo

 

35 minutes ago, Chriull said:

Some posts ago here was a discussion about the automatic upload of logs to google drive - as far as i remember this needs a signed apk (?from a registered developer?), so the app can authenticate with google drive...

Make sense, thanks for idea

[Chriull]

2 hours ago, palachzzz said:

I asked about this one:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.starbros.wheelinfo

That's just some  copycat who has nothing to do with wheellog.

2 hours ago, palachzzz said:

Make sense, thanks for idea

You're welcome. I looked into this some time ago, but i did not take my time to create all rhe certificates. I made instead a small automate script to upload the logs to my local server once i am in my local network...

[cespedes]

Thank you for your explanations.

4 hours ago, palachzzz said:

If someone really want to do something - he still can do it using 2.0.8 version that is still available on github, there is no significant changes in current version except Ninebot support. And they still can contact me, like people who did something for WheelLog, that helped me to add new wheels, or test it, or point me to some bugs.

I am very interested in adding Ninebot One E+ support to WheelLog (I own a One-E+ and a KS16S); that's why I was seeking for your code, to see if I could start from there.  Would it be possible for you to share the Ninebot-specific patch?

Thanks a lot,

Juan Céspedes

[Chriull]

Btw: one of the posts showing @JumpMasters attidute regarding opensource/etc regulationes: 

 

[palachzzz]

6 hours ago, cespedes said:

Thank you for your explanations.

I am very interested in adding Ninebot One E+ support to WheelLog (I own a One-E+ and a KS16S); that's why I was seeking for your code, to see if I could start from there.  Would it be possible for you to share the Ninebot-specific patch?

Thanks a lot,

Juan Céspedes

Ninebot Z protocol isn't compatible with Ninebot E+ protocol at all, so current Ninebot implementation won't be helpful. But I have all needed information about E+ protocol, I also can add it, if you have some time for testing. I'll contact you in PM.

[palachzzz]

@Javi Tuñon, @Reciodvd, I sent private messages to you, please contact me.

[Nils]

Update on the licensing situation: I contacted the original author (@JumpMaster) asking about this, and he has now kindly published an explicit license for the original WheelLog code in his repository (https://github.com/JumpMaster/WheelLogAndroid/blob/master/LICENSE). The original sources are now licensed under GPL v3.0, which simplified (likely overly so) means anyone can read, modify and distribute derivatives of the code provided it's under the same license with the same provisions (e.g. code must be made available for any done modifications for instance). This provides some needed resolution on the original sources at any rate!

Edited August 23, 2018 by Nils

[ir_fuel]

1 hour ago, Nils said:

Update on the licensing situation: I contacted the original author (@JumpMaster) asking about this, and he has now kindly published an explicit license for the original WheelLog code in his repository (https://github.com/JumpMaster/WheelLogAndroid/blob/master/LICENSE). The original sources are now licensed under GPL v3.0, which simplified (likely overly so) means anyone can read, modify and distribute derivatives of the code provided it's under the same license with the same provisions (e.g. code must be made available for any done modifications for instance). This provides some needed resolution on the original sources at any rate!

But this doesn't count for projects done with that source code before the publication date of this license I guess.

[who_the]

 

On 8/6/2018 at 2:05 PM, palachzzz said:

@Nick McCutcheon you need to set 84v option in menu (swipe from left border of screen to right, Wheel Settings -> Voltage)

Amazing work @palachzzz we all owe you huge debt of gratitude! And Paypal!

About the 84v/67v setting... Maybe it's time to default to 84v and have 67 be the option?

[Marty Backe]

23 minutes ago, who_the said:

 

Amazing work @palachzzz we all owe you huge debt of gratitude! And Paypal!

About the 84v/67v setting... Maybe it's time to default to 84v and have 67 be the option?

Great suggestion!

[Christophe Vidal]

On 8/22/2018 at 10:17 PM, palachzzz said:

Ninebot Z protocol isn't compatible with Ninebot E+ protocol at all, so current Ninebot implementation won't be helpful. But I have all needed information about E+ protocol, I also can add it, if you have some time for testing. I'll contact you in PM.

If you need another tester i would be happy to help