Open source Home Control box?

Post by **MindBender** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:28 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by RDNZL
 
Here is a very interesting essay about the Xanura HCB development. It talks about the fact that the old prototype was based on the misterhouse framework.

http://essay.utwente.nl/57490/1/scriptie_Braam.pdf
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If that's true, they're not only supposed to release the Linux Kernel they're using, but the application as well. Just like the Linux Kernel, Mr. House is Open Source software released under the Gnu Public License. This license offer you the freedom of downloading the source code, modifying it to your needs and redistribute it as you wish. You are even allowed to sell it, BUT you are obliged to refer to the Gnu Public License and provide the source code upon request. I will send them my request today [}:)]

Post by **Bwired** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:48 am

mmhe, This makes one think!
Erik can you store the pdf?

Post by **Snelvuur** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:47 am

stored under HCB folder, also i can understand they want loads of cash by letting there installers setup the stuff at homes.. but if its open source it would really start selling these things in a bigger amount. Only problem is that they sell this stuff to lots of other company's which then stamp there name on it..

// Erik (binkey.nl)

Post by **mar99** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:22 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Bwired
 I don't understand your first sentence, do you mean its almost the same as a CM11?
I still got my home controlbox lying around here doing nothing

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

with the cm11 you can do also the same as with the hcb. for the cm11 you have alot of pugins (like homeseer enz.)

Post by **TANE** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:39 pm

Homeseer is the main application...driver for the CM11 is plugin for the Homeseer
You can run the HCB without need of any computer..HCB is a better CM11 (CTX35) + computer + Homeseer
CM11 is very basic if you don't connect this a computer.

Post by **Digit** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:44 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> for the cm11 you have alot of pugins (like homeseer enz.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Chak is right, that is turning the world upside down. HCB is capable of much more then CM11.

Post by **mar99** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:48 pm

only with homeseer you have alot more options..
hcb you don't have a plugin fot media center (example).. and voice etc..<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chak
 Homeseer is the main application...driver for the CM11 is plugin for the Homeseer
You can run the HCB without need of any computer..HCB is a better CM11 (CTX35) + computer + Homeseer
CM11 is very basic if you don't connect this a computer.

Post by **Snelvuur** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:49 pm

you could perhaps, if it was opensource.. but thats what the whole discussion is about.

// Erik (binkey.nl)

Post by **TANE** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:19 pm

Homeseer has for sure more options than HCB.
Homeseer is also not open source...
who is using MCE plugin?

Post by **MindBender** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:06 am

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, my inquiries on receiving the Source code of the GPL based part of their software did not yield any result. Disappointingly Holec-Eaton didn't even bother to answer my email.

Today I have reported the case at GPL Violations (http://gpl-violations.org/).

Post by **Snelvuur** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:37 pm

It would be nice to have an alternative besides homeseer.. hope they respond at gpl-violations, since it doesn't look all that active to me.

// Erik (binkey.nl)

Post by **MindBender** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:00 pm

It usually works; No company has had the courage to be the first one to test the GPL in court (yet). Not even big ones. Other companies have no bad intensions, but don't give it a high priority on their to-do list. TomTom took their position in the Hall Of Shame quite seriously and have improved since.

But even small companies eventually bend, even if they're based in Korea: My request for the Kernel Source of my WebEye video servers was only replied by the statement that it was not in their company policy to make their source code available to the public. I reported it to gpl-violations and here is the result: http://www.webgateinc.com/gpl/

Post by **RDNZL** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:41 pm

Which part of the sourcecode do they have to release exactly?

I have a Philips SLM5500, and after a lot of searching and asking I got a link to their opensource code, it was nothing more than a tar file containing some linux drivers (LAN) and the linux kernel source. Nothing special.

I think you don't have to expect a file containing the source code of the complete product.
But I hope i'm wrong on this one

Developing DomotiGa - Gambas powered Domotics.

Post by **Snelvuur** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:48 pm

well perhaps not everything, but its nice to create your own build + addons if one is up for the challenge. Community makes devices better.. not always by the developers itself. I think there are more people willing to jump in and see if it can be a product you would want. As of now i would not wont one, but if it would do everything i want i would buy one. (just because its nice and small) there are alternatives, but why reinvent the wheel if they allready got it. I hope they are willing to open up enough so other people can create addons + improvements.

// Erik (binkey.nl)

Post by **MindBender** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:27 pm

No, not everything; Only the Gnu Public License based packages they use in their product. This is usually the Linux Kernel and the tools to build it. A Root File System would be a nice addition.

The application usually doesn't contain any GPL code, so its source doesn't need to be published. Though some people argue that any C-written program that has GLibC statically linked in should be published as well. Personally I think that goes a bit too far.

But when reading the Thesis you pointed out, I think their application is heavily based upon GPL code. Perhaps they have 'borrowed' GPL code or perhaps they have include GPL code in their binary (=executable) in any other way, for example by including C-files, statically linking object etc. In that case the GPL obliges them to make the source code (and all tools required to build it) available to the public.