Re: CM15A and MisterHouse Module Starting Point

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Dennis Brothers" <mysurname@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Neil Cherry" <njc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:slrndhgu29.ob9.njc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:20:08 GMT, Dave Houston wrote:
>>> Neil Cherry <njc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>I'm going with Insteon. So far it
>> looks promising (I know about the licensing issues, I'm working on
>> that).
>>
>
>FWIW, I sent Bob Cusey (Smarthome's Insteon busines development guy) an
>email expressing concern about their licensing strictures.  My primary
>concern was the freeware/shareware/open source issue.  Bob and Smarthome's
>Business Development veep (didn't catch his name, alas) phoned me to get a
>more accurate handle on just what it was that bothered me.  Apparently,
>they've seen some of the negative reactions here and on the various HA fora,
>but haven't been able to contact the people complaining in order to get to
>the crux of their issues.
>
>They assured me that the license was not intended to preclude the
>freeware/shareware/open source options - the Smarthome validation of
>Insteon-related products is only intended to be required for commercial
>products that use the Insteon logo ( kind of like Microsoft's
>Windows-certified program).  They agreed (this is my take on it) that the
>curent license is ambiguous and possibly hard to understand; they said that
>they would change it to make it clearer that amateur/small developers were
>not required to jump through the validation hoops.
>
>I regret that I didn't raise Dave Houston's confidentiality/NDA concerns -
>the phone call caught me a bit by surprise (I had emailed Bob my phone
>number, at his request, about five minute before the phone rang).  I
>understand Dave's issues, but they're not mine.
>
>On the strength of Bob's and the veep's assurances, I ordered the Insteon
>SDK (and am about to order the hardware development module).
>
>Again, this is all FWIW.
>
>        - Dennis Brothers
>
>P.S. - I agree that Insteon looks like something you can hang your hat on.

I don't think the license is ambiguous. It clearly states that they have the
sole right to decide whether or not you can sell your Insteon based product
and clearly states that you cannot divulge any information of any nature
once you've agreed to the license.

They may have intended it to only require their approval if you want to use
the "Insteon Compatible" logo. If so, it's poorly written. I would expect an
outfit as big as SmartHome to have good legal talent available.