TheBackShed.com

Forum Index : Electronics : Open Source

Author

Message

Downwind

Guru

Joined: 09/09/2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2333

Posted: 06:52am 19 May 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Without trying to fuel an argument here i would like to try to explain some of the things that restrict what we can and will make open source.

For interest i have several friends that i discuss my projects with, as well as theirs with and we often exchange ideas and sections of code etc.

It is how we work and enjoy the hobby.

This also causes other problems as not everyone is happy for their information to be made open source.
As we respect each others wishes, it puts limitations on what is able to be made open source, or at all shared with the rest of you.

So what is the answer??
Do we just bury a project or the software, or do we offer it for use but not open source.

Often we might use sections of someone else's work and splice it into out own (why reinvent the wheel) it is still essentially our own project with our our own ideas and our own creation but we have used another persons work in part.

How do we give credit to the other person for what we have done.
This then causes problems if we put it out open source claiming it as our own creation.

Friends of mine have given Gordon sections of code to use and are happy to be able to help and offer their knowledge, Glenn has given code that he can use, but essentially the end working product is his own creation.

Gordon has an obligation to protect others work, just because he has been given the right to use it freely dont mean he has the right to disclose it publicly.
Glenn might not mind but others do.
It is still 95% Gordon's work but how dose he make it open source without the 5% needed to make it function.

It is a fine line we walk in electronics and programming design that is not always so clean cut as many of you might think.

It is easy being a lounge chair critic, but not so easy being the developer.

We spend a mass amount of time developing something for the benefit of the rest of you, to be attacked for not disclosing everything in full.
I would expect we or you should have some right of say over our own developments of what is publicly disclosed.

I have many projects that i cannot make open source due to the involvement of others and information give to us by 3rd parties. I can supply you a programmed chip with code protection but not give the code out.

For interest one project that is not RE related, but im am sure of interest to a few members that own cattle is we designed a RFID tag reader for cattle ear tags.
It was a massive task and like pulling teeth try to find out the protocol used, much of it come down to decoding tags and hours of work.
I can give the circuit data of how to construct a tag reader but not the source codes of the processor we created.

Yes you can buy a commercial tag reader for well over $1000.00 but we chose to design one for a bit over $100.00 .
Do you think the end user would really care about what the source codes are, if they are able to build their own for $$$$ saved.

Once again the plot thickens as Gordon shared a section of code that was used in the computer software that reads the eeprom from the tag reader onto the pc to make it a user friendly software package.
How do we give credit to him for what is essentially our creation not his, but it dose contain a section of his work.

I hope this attempts to explain why every thing is not always able to be open source as many of you would like.
It is not always because of what is seen to be "commercial interests" but to protect and respect the interests of others that help out unselfishly and for no reward.

I truly hope this do not spark a debate as we have seen previously.

And Glenn should you see this as adding fuel to a fire than please remove it.

Pete.

Sometimes it just works

VK4AYQ
Guru

Joined: 02/12/2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2539

Posted: 09:45am 19 May 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Hi Pete

I can understand the position you are in as when you are splicing in other peoples work, they need to have some control on their intellectual property, as we know in the commercial world the practice of stealing intellectual property is associated with heavy penalties, not to say that the IP you are dealing with is any less important, but when it is offered for the project and becomes part of it the, IP limitations for open source or secure IP become a valid part of our honor system that we as a movement promoting environmentally friendly processes should show our honor in protecting contributed secure IP.

Most of us use Windows in our computers and don't demand that it be open source but we still benefit by the use of it, likewise with some projects we should respect the wishes of contributors of IP.

Our projects are for benefit and interest of members contain some secure code, so what, we should appreciate that not everyone is the same as us and respect their wishes, as its still for our benefit.

All the best

Bob

Foolin Around

Downwind

Guru

Joined: 09/09/2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2333

Posted: 12:04pm 19 May 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Print this post

Just to clarifie something that was pointed out in a PM to me about this.

We do not steal others work and splice it into our own, we help each other within a small work group, and use our given skills to assist each other in their projects.

I can validate any information or code given is of original form and the author.

With a example case of taking a code written for picaxe and translating it to Pic and claiming it as ones own, i do see as stealing someones work.

It is no different than taking a book and translating it to a different lanuage and claiming you wrote it.

I am not supportive of these behavours and will not part take in these activitys.

Pete.

Sometimes it just works

Print this page

To reply to this topic, you need to log in.