This is an honest question for my understanding: how would a scam like this work? Take investor money and spend it on yourself? Or give yourself an outrageous salary?
I wouldn't call it an outright scam. But yes, you pay yourself a nice salary, travel around the world to meet potential OEMs, you may fly in private jets, you stay in fancy hotels, you have business meetings in Michelin star restaurants.
The motorcycle is real, you can buy it.
I worked for a company in Germany in 2024 and the CEO was quite open about using public grant money as a free gift. The company wasn't build around it but it was a significant part of income. He made engineers sign papers that they had worked on some AI stuff which they didn't. A demonstrator was made with yolo by an intern. He said they have just no competency to figure that out and also that they actually don't want to figure it out.
Or look at the EuroLLM: sounds good on paper, never heard about it again. Grant grabbing is a real industry in Europe with companies specialised on creating grant applications and forming consortiums.
Pretty major point of difference though isn't it? They claim this will be out there in Q1 2026, giving a chance for sceptics and industry professionals to tear it down. If this is really the long con, they'd at least give a little time for the cheques to clear before their wild claims could be assessed?
The other possibility is that they have very little moat with this new battery tech, because it's so easy to manufacture. Being the first mover might be their only play, and it's only a matter of time before someone else figures it out (or it leaks).
This looks great! I really suck at making cinematic videos with my drone and I would welcome the possibility of just instructing it in natural language.
The license was changed. You can't do that to other people's code. It was originally released under GPLv2 and he's changed all the copyright notices to say GPLv3. While the license included in the original doesn't bind the recipients to v2, recipients can't restrict successive recipients to a later version only. They have the option of v2.
That's not what the license says. It explicitly allows derivative works to be redistributed under subsequent versions of the GPL, including GPLv3.
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
The license says you, as a redistributor, can follow the terms of GPLv2, GPLv3, GPLv(n+1). That is not the same as saying you can relicense it to any future version of the GPL. Every recipient will always have the choice of GPLv2.
The original source code will of course remain available under GPLv2. For the modified version, it can absolutely be modified and distributed under a later version of the license because that's exactly what the license says.
I'll edit out some distracting words and see if that helps clarify:
> you can redistribute...and...modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License...either version 2...or...any later version.
So this means I can redistribute and modify it under the terms of GPLv3, which is exactly what this project does.
Some people do have a problem with this, as you seem to, and that's the reason very notable projects, like the Linux kernel, often edit out the part of the license that allows you to distribute it under later versions, and instead mandate GPLv2, even for derivative works.
Don't read the readme to figure out what the license says. Read the license: the readme only tells you what license. It doesn't tell you the terms of that license.
The actual license used explicitly allows later versions of the GPL to be specified in place of GPLv2.
> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
> I dont see why people would have any GPLv2 rights for this version.
Because the code is licensed under GPL v2. Not or any later versions. In the original distribution there was a filed called LICENSE.txt which is just the literal GPL v2.0 text, which includes the text of the license as well as the explanatory text and instructions on how to apply it. There is a README.txt which includes the line "Licensed under the GNU General Public License 2.0." And then every source code file says:
// This source is available for distribution and/or modification
// only under the terms of the DOOM Source Code License as
// published by id Software. All rights reserved.
>While the license included in the original doesn't bind the recipients to v2, recipients can't restrict successive recipients to a later version only. They have the option of v2.
The program was licensed under GPL version 2.0 only. So no choice to use later versions.
