|
Well - if you read the comments of cat owners, you're half way their. Just a small typo in your spelling:
For cats, it's reigns and has always been so.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I've been working on some software that I had planned to release open source under the MIT license.
It's an e-pub reader. The thing is as I was working on it, I ended up out of curiosity looking up how the original Nook e-reader did its magic.
Come to find out, as I understand it anyway, it's basically using a smartphone(ish) back like an ARM Cortex-A with 256MB of RAM end running a modified android OS.
My code *should* run on 512kB of RAM on a much lower end (read cheaper and less power hungry) CPU/SoC. 1GHz+ ARM Cortex-A vs my 240Mhz Tensilica Xtensa (although my software should run on other systems as well). I haven't finished the code yet so I can't be 100% certain but worst case I need a WROVER with an extra 4MB of PSRAM.
Well this presents me an opportunity according to some people I work with who do sales.
I could potentially approach a larger company that makes e-readers with this stuff because my software will run on as little as $30 retail worth of hardware (small e-paper screen included) and the battery can be smaller/last longer meaning the device can be significantly shrunk.
But if I'm to do that, I don't want to release my e-pub reader to the public and thus lose some of my negotiating leverage.
I've been thinking about releasing the component pieces. Indeed I already have by way of GFX and my Zip library - I'm working on a markup reader right now that I may release.
But the paranoid part of me is worried doing that may also decrease my leverage because someone else will put the pieces together into an e-pub reader.
What would you do?
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Try it... and then when you fail to make any significant money because whomever you approach tries to screw you out of everything ..make it open source! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
I intend to remain optimistic. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Start downloading from your articles, and file off the serial numbers before I start to sell "my" new reader? 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You could release your code under a license that retains your commercial rights. When someone builds an e reader with your code, sue them for license fees.
Make sure that you bury a phone home module into your code so you know when it happens. Make it a strong crypto phone home for something important like the key to decode an important resource like the font
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how realistic that avenue is but I'll certainly look into it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: You could release your code under a license that retains your commercial rights.
There are a number of products that do this, like QT , for example. The question would be, what sort of clout would the OP have to make it stick, in the event of a license breach?
I don't know about the feasibility or desirability of a phone-home module: That would presumably require a network connection and a permanent key-server, either of which might not be doable. Since the aim is to run on tiny systems, adding resource decryption may be beyond what the device would be able to do. In any case, if its open sourced, then presumably a good developer would be able to work around the issue.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
your neighborhood "friendly" capitalist here: $$$$
you should be paid for your hard work. it's the American way. It is the correct way. It is the only way.
|
|
|
|
|
I make sure I get paid. I still like to release things for everyone to use. The conundrum here is originally I planned on making this open source, but I may go back on that.
For the record I am economically agnostic, and can find fault with any economic model, planned or unplanned. Scarcity is scarcity no matter how it's "managed"
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the need/want for open source. I really do.
but if you are sitting on something that can generate income for you, then seize the moment, IMHO.
there is plenty you have written and will write that can still be open source.
just my 2 cents. 
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: but I may go back on that
I probably would, if I were in your shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
At your rate of code production, you can sell that and still release open source many other projects.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Go for the money. If all else fails, you still have the option to release everything as open source. Doing things the other way around won't work.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
What he said - go for the money. If you make boatloads of it and feel guilty, give some to us. otherwise develop some business that employs people and makes the world a better place.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: If you make boatloads of it and feel guilty, give some to us charity or some non profit organisations.
FTFY
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this would work for you, but I use GPLv3 with this in mind. It basically says that anyone can freely use the software if they also open source their own. Given that most commercial users are reluctant to do this, the "out" is that the software can also be licensed under another FSF license. One of those licenses allows users to keep their software proprietary, but to get that license they'd have to pay.
|
|
|
|
|
for me, the key question would be: can your techniques render text/fonts as legibly and accurately as what is out there.
good luck ! Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
It does truetype. It might be a little rough around the edges metaphorically speaking due to it being thrown together.
The curves and such and the antialiasing are accurate, given the lack of supersampling.
It won't render the small bitmaps that are embedded in some TTFs for really small font sizes. I'll maybe add that later when I get some font files that have them.
As well as what's out there though? No. Hardware limitations being what they are, I'm dealing with very low DPI screens, limited RAM and limited processing power, and while the latter two things are surmountable or otherwise fungible in terms of trading off for quality, the low DPI screens there's no getting around. And to get to a higher DPI you'd often need more RAM (especially for black and white displays where you must keep a frame buffer) and then there's the matter of the SPI bus' bandwidth. It simply can't move the massive number of pixels you'd need for higher DPI devices quickly enough to be feasible. There's very little in software that can be done about that.
So I would say given all of that, it's not the best out there - some amount of compromise is necessary, but for now it's the best you're going to get for general IoT devices.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I should have qualified my response to indicate I was addressing only the idea of your software being used as a graphics engine/rasterizer for e-readers, not IOT displays in general.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no, I wouldn't presume to think my software can outdo something that can run on an ARM Cortex A with a quarter gig or more of RAM.
It's a wonder that a little ESP32 with 512kB of RAM for example, can do it can do it at all. In fact, until I'm done I have no idea how fast it will actually be. But it's 240MHz and the Nook Simple Touch I'm sort of using as a baseline** was 800MHz and 256MB of RAM.
**because i own one, and because it's what i'd like to - but won't quite be able to - duplicate on cheaper hardware
The goal here is to do something that's already done well, and do it very cheaply and power miserly, even if means doing without some frills.
I'm not building a better mousetrap so much as I'm building a smaller, more portable mousetrap.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
As others have said... I would try to go for the money, you still have no security you will be able to sell it.
If you can sell it... congratulations. You can still decide if you want to keep the money for you or help any interesting project that help people (i.e. there is one running in India that recycle old laptop batteries connecting it to a solar module and the result is used as a power bank for places without a stable electricity supply, you can find it searching for "nunam project india") in a way of "open sourcing" your business success.
If you can't sell it, you can still release it open source with a license model like the one GregUtas explained (just in case).
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If you plan to do any money with it, do not release the code yet.
Otherwise, it will be used by somebody who will ignore your MIT licensing to make the money you should have gotten (Good luck for proving your code was reused ; and even then, many countries do not care about open source licensing).
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's my concern.
The other issue I didn't mention in the OP is if I can I'd like to keep access to most of the technology I've used in this.
So what I think I might do, while a bit risky, gives me the best of both worlds.
I'm going to open source enough of the components for this software that someone who was dedicated and smart could use them to build another one.
But I won't release them all until just before I approach those companies so nobody has time to compete with me.
I'll also, as I alluded to above, hold enough back of the e-reader code itself that I'm both providing actual value to those companies, and fending off potential competitors.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a plan 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
