From: Gregg L. <gr...@li...> - 2012-09-05 16:15:56
|
Hi Marc and list, On 9/4/2012 6:14 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote: > +Gregg > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:00:21AM -0700, Mark Kendrick wrote: >> 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? > > I'm pretty sure it's not their intent and I think this is how Gregg wrote > his code. The majority of the code that is specific to any Insteon documentation was based off of the PLM documents--which is made available publicly. Jason's original code relied purely on this doc. The only thing that I can think of that required reading their dev guide was specific retry timing (which only exists in the branch) and the flag meaning returned in the Insteon message flag byte. So, it's a very small amount that relies on documentation that was found in the dev guide. It would be a rather tall order to expect someone to scrutinize all of the code sufficient to make some sort of linkage to protected documentation. There's a fair number of operations and settings that are based on other sources--such as forums and anecdotal testing. > Smarthome is not a bunch of idiots that go around suing people who wrote > open source code to use the hardware they sell. And, especially since the nature of the code would make trying to figure anything about the insteon protocol extremely difficult. In other words, the code is structured around our purposes which has very little to do with documenting the insteon protocol. > In other words, it sucks that they charge for the info, but they suing over > some license agreement is not going to happen. In the very worst case, they > would send a cease and desist, which again they won't do because it's > utterly stupid. > > If Gregg doesn't have the current docs, I'm fine putting money into the pool > to get the current developer kit too. The bigger issue is my finding time to work on what I already know rather than look for the latest docs. What I have (the PLM documentation) does cover i2 info. I just checked and I still have access to the same developer website. Gregg |