Okay, I'm not an attorney myself, but I've read over that agreement several times, and although it does prevent me from publishing the development manual on my site, I see nothing that limits my right to publish software code that implements it. The most restrictive part applies to products that I brand with the Insteon logo, which of course I wouldn't do with my code.

Which part of it do you feel creates a restriction that would preclude development for open source purposes?


On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM, George Farris <farrisg@gmsys.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 12:32 -0400, Ron Blout wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 12:23 PM, George Farris wrote:
> > I suggest staying away from this.  Basically if you sign this agreement
> > you may not be able to develop any open source software that has  the
> > Insteon protocol.
> I agree, but how are you to develop and open source application
> supporting Insteon code unless you know the protocol syntax, etc.

Well essentially this is know as reverse engineering. Yes it takes
longer but...


Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365