This has violated the open source software license. What do you think of this behavior？īy the way, as an open source project, BH5HNU only released the source code of version 0.0.4，he did not publish the source code of subsequent versions. He left SYSJOINT and continued to produce and sell -F in the name of deepelec, we still have some legal disputes with BU5HNU and his new company.īU5HNU has always claimed that he is the original designer of -F, which literally seems to be true, but the truth is that an employee leaves the company and starts to manufacture and sell the same products as the former owner. He was responsible for NanoVNA-F project, and -F was originally sold through SYSJOINT's Aliexpress shop(), but when -F became popular and produced some benefits, BH5HNU betrayed SYSJOINT under the drive of interests. I am a partner of SYSJOINT, and I must clarify that BH5HNU used to be an employee of SYSJOINT.
There are bad NanoVNA-F clones being sold but they are easy to spot because they do not have metal cases and have smaller batteries than the original NanoVNA-F. They both can be upgraded with the latest firmware intended for the ver 2.2 boards. In any case, as you found out during your use, there is no discernible difference between the two. The blacked out line indicates the latter. You either have a ver 2.2 NanoVNA-F produced by SYSJOINT or a ver 2.2 NanoVNA-F produced by BH5HNU after he left the company. BH5HNU has progressed on to the ver 2.3 and 3.1 hardware at DEEPELEC. SYSJOINT continues to manufacture the version 2.2 NanoVNA-F under its name.
My understanding is that BH5HNU worked for SYSJOINT until he had a disagreement with them.
You can probably get a more definitive answer on the NanoVNA-F group. The nano is working as expected till now so I do not notice any differences. Is this one a fake or was sysjoint the former name of deepelec? Looks like the one from the store on aliexpress. The third line was blackend but you can read Everything else
0 kommentar(er)
