Open-source LPM project base. Your thoughts?

[lasersbee]

That and hopefully spur some innovation along the way.

-Trevor

Don't forget the Chinese are closely watching this Forum
and they don't give a rat's a$$ about any licenses....

I've already had the head of WL try to get technical info
on our LaserBee products....

What is it exactly that you want to innovate... besides sticking
a feather in your hat...


Jerry

 

[rhd]

I say GNU.

Ultimately, hobbyists will start making more LPMs for our community not because of licensing technicalities, or the benefits of MIT vs GNU, but rather because of a genuine interest and the utter lack of any variety in the hobby market right now.

Either way it's a huge win for all of us.

 

[Trevor]

GNU it is. I've bundled up a release of OpenLPM Mk. I with the GNU license and header. I've also created a project page on my website for it.

Once OpenLPM Mk. I passes final testing, I'll post the source and documentation on my website and make a tutorial thread here.

The parts for me to develop OpenLPM Mk. II are on the way...

-Trevor

 

[jcranmer]

Looks like I'm late to the party. I'd vote for GNU GPL as well. Keep in mind I think there two different versions of GPL though with small differences, which I don't remember the details of.

 

[HaloBlu]

I'm late too. This went down way too fast :'(
Open source is an issue I care about quite a bit.
Which GNU GPL license are you using? Standard GPL yes?
Also which version? Please, please be GPLv3! I really don't want to see the chips encased in epoxy to defeat the intent of GPL.

 

[Trevor]

GNU GPL, unless you have a better suggestion?

-Trevor

 

[HaloBlu]

In my rush I forgot to say that its great your releasing this! :beer: Arduino is a great choice being as crazy popular as it is & people can always just use the atmega328p chips instead of paying for a whole Arduino board.

Also it looks like I posted an edit to my above post 1 minute after your post.

 

[Trevor]

I'm late too. This went down way too fast :'(
Open source is an issue I care about quite a bit.
Which GNU GPL license are you using? Standard GPL yes?
Also which version? Please, please be GPLv3! I really don't want to see the chips encased in epoxy to defeat the intent of GPL.

Yep, GPLv3. Mind elaborating on your epoxy comment?

Any more input you have would be greatly appreciated; you're definitely way more experience with open-source than I am.

-Trevor

 

[jcranmer]

So I'm a little clueless when it comes to this type of stuff. Would a teensey v2 work to run this? I picked one up awhile back for an unrelated project. Please please say yes.

 

[Pontiacg5]

Don't forget the Chinese are closely watching this Forum
and they don't give a rat's a$$ about any licenses....

I've already had the head of WL try to get technical info
on our LaserBee products....

What is it exactly that you want to innovate... besides sticking
a feather in your hat...


Jerry

Jeez, your a first class ass tonight aint'ya? Can't handle a little competition from a lone Kenometer and this?

Who cares what the Chinese do? They do whatever they want. A LPM is not that complicated, I'm sure they could toss one together if they felt like it would sell.

And the head of WL, Steve, couldn't get technical with a 3 year old and a bowl of froot loops.

...
....
...
.
....

That is all :thanks:

 

[HaloBlu]

One change from GPLv2 to v3 was to block the danger of what has become called tivoization. With GPLv2 any company could take your open source code, sell it & use hardware means to ensure you payed a monthly fee (or whatever control the wish to exert).

In a LPM someone could add a second chip who's only job is to lockup the LPM unless you payed your yearly fee for example. The LPM could have no additional features beyond what your code provides but they still get to control what you built. Epoxy just popped into my mind. Quick way to prevent the buyer of such a LPM any access to the pcb.

 

[Trevor]

What is it exactly that you want to innovate... besides sticking
a feather in your hat...

Jerry

Whooaa there, hello. I'd missed the bit about a "feather in my cap." :undecided:

Jerry, you know that I develop things simply for the sake of doing so. Luminosity 2.0 has been done for months. It was interesting, I learned a lot, and moved to the next project. I wrote LumenOS P1 for what, five people?

I don't know what you think I'm in this for, but I'm far more interested in academia and advancing what we can do as a community. I dunno what else to tell you. :undecided:

HaloBlu, interesting, I'd never heard about that. I'm definitely glad that the license protects against that though.

In other news, OpenLPM Mk. I has tested pretty well. I'm going to get documentation written up and have the code online here in the next few days!

-Trevor

 

[HIMNL9]

One change from GPLv2 to v3 was to block the danger of what has become called tivoization. With GPLv2 any company could take your open source code, sell it & use hardware means to ensure you payed a monthly fee (or whatever control the wish to exert).

In a LPM someone could add a second chip who's only job is to lockup the LPM unless you payed your yearly fee for example. The LPM could have no additional features beyond what your code provides but they still get to control what you built. Epoxy just popped into my mind. Quick way to prevent the buyer of such a LPM any access to the pcb.

Well, then i want to see a company adding a chip to a reading head for block its working til you pay a fee ..... ..... all the circuits i've designed in the time for LPMs, regardless if TEC based, thermopile based, or other systems, was basically using two linear ICs (op-amps) and few others components, i want to see how they can block these circuits with an extra chip (i mean, blocking them in a way that you cannot break simply ripping off the extra chip, ROTFL :crackup

 

[rhd]

Jeez, your a first class ass tonight aint'ya? Can't handle a little competition from a lone Kenometer and this?

Who cares what the Chinese do? They do whatever they want. A LPM is not that complicated, I'm sure they could toss one together if they felt like it would sell.

It might be a really useful exercise to contact some Chinese OEMs and bring up the idea of designing an LPM for cheap chinese gadget sites.

They create all sorts of exceedingly vertical products where I get the sense that they'd be satisfied selling 100 at a profit of $15 a piece.

With the lack of competition that exists in this market, it's probably a good time for us to start educating the Chinese about the value and demand for inexpensive LPMs. They might not be interested in doing something as advanced as what Trevor has created, but certainly they could do something simple like a USB interfaced meter, and I'm sure they'd be able to sell it for down under < $50.

 

[HaloBlu]

^ :crackup: I think I heard someones head just explode. Cleanup on aisle 5.

 

[Benm]

I would stop worrying about the license model really, as there is little practical point. Even if you chose a license that prohibits commercial application of a modified version without releasing the modified source, what are you -really- going to do about it if someone does so anyway?

Apart from even proving someones binary is somehow derived of a modified version of your sourcecode, there is the practical side of process costs and discovering the copy in the first place.

I'd be much more interested in seeing how you will handle the hardware and calibration side of things.

Epoxy just popped into my mind. Quick way to prevent the buyer of such a LPM any access to the pcb.

Oh well, if someone whats to access the hardware, they will be able to as long as budget permits. It's not unheard of for companies to go as far as disassembling chips and using electron microscopes to analyze the architecture used to build them.