Re: powerlinc usb control api

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Dennis Brothers" <mysurname@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

>> There are some severe restrictions in the Insteon SDK license.

[snip]

>Note that the requirement for SmartHome "blessing" of your app only applies
>if you use the Insteon name or logo - you're free to distribute anything you
>want if you don't do that.  That's how Neil Cherry was able to publish his
>unix-based stuff, after initially getting off on the wrong foot.  This seems
>to imply that you can release software that talks to "SmartHome's new PLC
>protocol" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) without having to submit it to
>SmartHome for approval.

"SmartHome's new PLC protocol" might work for a few weeks until they
introduce their next "new PLC protocol" but it's not likely to result in
many sales.

Since Neil's Linux driver is not a commercial product, he might use "Insteon
compatible" without violating the license but he's still forbidden to
divulge any information about the SDK.

Note also that even if your product passes all their tests, they can still
prevent you from selling it if they wish. I would not advise spending time,
effort, and money developing a product that yhey can arbitrarily block.
IIRC, they didn't think the Charmed Quark developer was "qualified" to
develop for their earlier USB Powerlinc.

If you reverse engineer the protocol and never buy the kit you can say your
product is "Insteon compatible" (with a disclaimer that Insteon is a
Smarthome trademarked term) without having to submit it to SmartHome for
approval. You can also say anything you want about test results.

Smarthome can set whatever terms they wish. I'm merely pointing out that
their terms are quite restrictive. I like Insteon and went to considerable
effort to test it and let others know I think it's worth consideration