Alan, did you mean "poring"?

(Sorry, alan, you know I love you but I just couldn't resist this one. I tried, I really tried)

Re the private message sent to me:

Please explain why this is disgusting. Alan, who has the most right to complain, says it's only "bad form." Definitions I find of "bad form" include it's bad form for women to smoke in public, and definition of the term as "impolite." What is disgusting about sharing what someone has written to me...unless perhaps the person is too shy in his convictions, or embarrassed about what he has written, to want it shared with others?

I have put some thought into this and maybe I have a solution that is reasonable, or at least worth discussion.

The issue doesnt seem to be with giving code to the end user as much as it is giving away user modules that can be seen as having value. So the middle ground in my mind, for those not willing to provide copies of 'specialty' user modules, would be to provide a customer with a copy of the code that does not contain those modules. I dont mean an archive of the program and touch panels that is missing said modules but an entirely new/different archive with the modules (and all supporting code) removed, as well as the touch panel pages. The end user wins because they will have editable code should they decide to use a different programmer/integrator in the future and the dealer wins because proprietary code snippets arent being passed on to the competition. This should be explained to the end user during initial meetings and put in the contract. This seems fair to me. The end user gets a system that works and has special features, the dealer gets to maintain the competitive edge and all is right with the world. I am talking about core code. I'm sure someone will argue that the module that they wrote to control projector by Brand X is special and as such shouldnt be included. Fine, include the protocol document in the archive and throw a bit of code into provide the most basic functions. I think most clients would be okay with knowing they dont have to start over completely but will lose certain special features of the system if they use someone else. Yes, it is extra work on the part of the integrator/programmer but I see that as a cost of doing business. It wouldnt be that hard to write a working program that you add the specialty modules to after you have created the core working system. If you are using specialty modules for your core code then rethink your programming style or come to grips with letting them go. If you dont want to risk specialty modules from ending up with the competitor then write your code in such a fashion that you can give working code to a client outside of your specialty modules. This seems fair to the programmer and to the end user. Dont we have a responsibility to protect our clients best interests concerning their control system? Many programmers wont write code for sprinkler control unless a weather station is integrated also. Is this good policy? Is it to protect your client? How about not controlling gas firepits/fireplaces without appropriate safety measures put in place? Is that to protect your client? I think yes. If that is the case then isnt it a responsible action to code the core foundation of a system in such a fashion that you have zero reservations about turning that portion of the code over to another programmer (which is the big fear of giving code to an end user, it seems)?

My flame suit is on so light me up if you wish. How about just discussing this as an option?

QQQ, thanks for the very clear description as to what the modules are and what they do. I understand the need for them and the advantages are and of course the need for you to protect them.
Having said that I am now more than happy NOT to use them. I am happy to pay for the billable hours and have the full code for something I need to work.
The thought of ever having to rewrite this system by someone else scares the hell out of me.

Escient and ReQuest and many other companies do exactly what we are doing, they take a product, develop a slick interface/GUI that makes the system/server easier to use and navigate.

We are doing just that, we outsource the hardware to RTI, Crestron, etc. Then we develop a slick GUI for the client to use to navigate the hardware.

I guess the real issues is that our systems aren't just for one device but for an ENTIRE house.

I don't think that companies would be so reluctant to provide the code as long as the client has a clear understanding of the VALUE of this code and is paying for that value. that being said, QQQ has some really good points about custom modules that give a company a competitive edge and you definitely wouldn't want to give away. Period. Unless you were out of business, then you've lost your edge.

Anyone that is putting URC in the same post as AMX or Creston as far as intellectual property goes and program ownership rights does not know what they are talking about.

That's like taking an Ortega Taco dinner in a box kit and comparing it to Grandma Santiago's homemade picadillo and corn tortilla recipes.

I think its safe to include AMX with URC and Phillips universal remote's.




At my house we call the boxed tacos "crunk tacos". They are definately not real tacos but they have their place :).

As others have eluded to before me, it's our arrogance that gets us into trouble.

The discussion is about the work that goes into designing an interface for the client, and the possible dissection of said programming to the benefit of our competitors, and the detriment of ourselves.

Whether it takes 3-5 hours to completely customize an MX-3000, or 100-200 hours to completely customize a more sophisticated system, the problem is the same.

We are bound by the manufacturer's of our respective systems to not distribute the programming software, beyond our own liscense. In that regard, giving the client the compiled or uncompiled code, or the simpler program for a less sophisticated remote does absolutely no harm, since the client does not have access to the programming software anyway.

The argument is that if we give the "unlocked" program to the client, and the client gives it to our competitor, then our competitor now has our creative knowledge, for free. If I go to several hours of training, and spend countless more hours of my own time to perfect my talents, even for a less sophisticated system, then I have an edge over the same class of programmers, who did not spend the time and effort to make a slick interface, and great macros, and solid performance for my clients.

I'm not saying that URC and RTI are just as good as Crestron and AMX. I am saying however, that idealogically, we are involved in the same battle. Since I do not have a relationship with Crestron or AMX, I cannot email them for their input on the matter. I sell and program URC, so I wrote them a letter. If they get involved in the discussion, perhaps their counter parts at Crestron and AMX will follow suit.

Mike

Thoroughly vet their installer rather than chose inferior product.

what are you guys talking about the code???????

read the entire thread. a lot of information has been discussed about the "code".

I won't comment on the "inferior" thing, but otherwise I totally agree. Thoroughly vet the installer. To do that, the consumer must know exactly what questions to ask on this particular subject. And they don't know...

I was installing some software on my laptop the other day and to register the software it prompted me with a phone number and 6 digit code then asked for another code in return. I called the number and, after they verified that I had indeed paid for the software, they had me read the 6 digit code and then gave me a different 6 digit code to punch in. The guy explained to me it was a rotating code to cut down on people freely sharing the software.

I thought to myself that a similar type solution would be a potential solution to this problem.

CI business A installs the system. They lock the "code" with their master password rendering the code useless without their password. Client has said code in their possession, but without software and the password it's not accessible.

Now CI business A goes belly up or leaves town or retires and CI business B is called to troubleshoot, add equipment ect. When CI business B attempts to access the code it prompts them with a 6 digit code that could be called into crestron, amx, or whoever to get a return code to unlock it. This would keep code usable to Authorized dealers only and give the customers the reassurance that they wouldn't be dead in the water if a company were to go under.

Yeah, read through the thread. When you have a more exact question, quote exactly what you read that made you have the question. That will help us give you more than a vague answer.