Re: SDK - WAS: Insteon - watch out for RF interference

["Ralph" <Nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That's why we're still on the fence. I think we'll just wait and see what
happens with Insteon and independent developers. Currently it looks pretty
scarey at best.

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42b5b612.207359527@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The terms "labeled compatible" and "SMARTHOME's sole discretion" would
> worry
> me. I'm sure it would be easy enough to reverse engineer without the SDK
> thus avoiding any contractual limitations but why help a company that's so
> deliberately unhelpful?
>
> Ralph <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Dave Houston wrote:
>>> I haven't found any detailed documentation of the protocol. I presume
>>> you
>>> would get it with the SDK but the agreement for that seemed to violate
>>> the
>>> 13th Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude (They can block
>>> you
>>> from selling your developed Insteon device if they wish.) so I opted not
>>> to
>>> get the SDK.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, I was pretty put off by the agreement also and wrote to them. They
>>claim, and a closer reading seems to support it, that the restriction is
>>against using the Insteon name on your products, not selling software
>>developed with the SDK.
>>
>>Note below that the prohibition is just against Insteon LABELED
>>applications.
>>
>>"The distribution and commercialization of any INSTEON labeled
>>compatible applications developed by you will require and will be
>>subject to the terms of a separately executed agreement between you and
>>SMARTHOME, at SMARTHOME's sole discretion."
>>
>>Presumably, if they let you sell it at all, they'll want something like
>>royalty payments and/or exclusive marketing rights if you use the
>>Insteon name on software developed with the SDK. My reading of the
>>agreement though is that you can market software developed with the SDK
>>as long as you don't use the Insteon name. It doesn't sound like there's
>>any library code either, so they couldn't restrict distribution that way.
>>
>>It's still all a bit of a crock of course and would make selling
>>anything developed a lot harder. We still haven't decided if it's worth
>>the business risk to start a development project, the kit price though
>>is in the noise. We haven't ordered one yet just so we can talk to
>>people about it. Once you sign the agreement it seems like you can't
>>discuss it any further.
>>
>>Maybe like the old Unix (U**x) stuff it would have to be marketed as for
>>I*****n ;-}
>