Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pebble Watch software is now open source

ericmigi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–236 of 236 posts

Re: Pebble Watch software is now open source

#231

Post by ddlsmurf »

bloppe wrote: post #146
ddlsmurf wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the Pebble specific parts are. This is an unfortunate state of affairs from hardware manufacturers, they are very late to the open source game, if at all.

Surprising because you'd think the hardware itself would be their primary moat.

Hardware isn't that hard to copy paste really, to make it hard you need to use really expensive processes (extreme uv etc), but otherwise, mostly you can pretty much take a picture. (very grossly speaking here, but just saying, the software is definitely a critical part)

Re: Pebble Watch software is now open source

#232

Post by infotainment »

jamesbelchamber wrote: post #183
infotainment wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like Rebble (the board) really overplayed their hand. From what they posted, it seems like they wanted more control over what Core was doing, deciding that the best way to do that was to try and hold the app store data hostage. Now, with the Core app open sourced and multiple app store repos supported, Rebble's position will likely be greatly diminished from what it could have been if they had been satisfied…

I spent some time on their Discord chatting and trying to nudge them towards a healthier approach. Many of them seem to think that PebbleOS was released just for them (they quote the Google press release), and so reading between the lines I really do think they feel at some level that code has been "stolen" from them. Which is ridiculous (and I said so) but if they think it's true then it explains their actions much…

Having also lurked in their Discord, I think your analysis is pretty much spot-on!

Re: Pebble Watch software is now open source

#233

Post by bayindirh »

ddlsmurf wrote: post #230
bayindirh wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between the cross-licensing of hardware IP blocks and 3rd party software which never sees the light of the day, hardware manufacturers work like a secretive three letter agency to be able to control every part of their ecosystem. I tend to understand where this comes from. It's part business, part continuation of old customs and the way they did it and being able to control obsolescence to be able push new things to…

Seems a bunch are angry about this, honestly, 100% of what they made/control is open source was a good enough bar for me. Specially if all closed components are optional. I value the flexibility of being able to use or not even closed stuff. It's unclear to me what the issue is, false advertisement ? This is as good as it gets for things like this, maybe the "100%" was indelicate, but I wouldn't go so far as misleadi…

Personally, I'm not angry. On the contrary, I'm pretty neutral about closed-source, optional add-ons. I started playing/working with computers pretty early, and the current state is an utopia when compared to olden times in terms of Free and Open Source software (OTOH, both Free Software and Open Source is under heavy attack because of many reasons I won't enter here).

What bothers me is "100%" part of the open source claim. I personally like the Debian model a lot. It's DFSG compliant by default, and if non-free software is needed, it's attainable. Debian is "as Free as you want, as closed as you need".

I see, new Pebble follows the same model, and it's perfectly fine, but branding it as 100% Open Source is not.

I'll not discuss hardware companies. It's a can of worms that doesn't belong to that reply. Let's say while I understand some of their reservations, these reservation doesn't change that they're greedy and selfish (beyond acceptable limits).

Re: Pebble Watch software is now open source

#234

Post by tomhow »

ls-a wrote: post #161
tomhow wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need a mini-sermon. We just need you, like everyone, to follow the guidelines. Criticism is fine. Emptiness and thoughtlessness is not. You're welcome not to participate here if you're unwilling to put a little effort and substance into what you post.

Why didn't you update the title. It's not 100% open source. What's the point of the wrong percentage if it's not to exaggerate a false claim?

We did that, but the best way to show you want to contribute positively to HN is to email us (hn@ycombinator.com) rather than raising the issue only after you've been pulled up for abuse.

Re: Pebble Watch software is now open source

#235

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

compsciphd wrote: post #229
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of those commenters: It's actually super easy. It's fine for your product to only be mostly open source. It's definitely completely understandable if you can't open up some of the blobs that you yourself licensed. All I ask is that if you can't actually ship 100% of the software on the device needed to actually provide the advertised features, that you don't make a big headline claiming that it's 100% open sou…

if the blobs were built into firmware, so didn't need to be shipped, would you then say its a 100% open source software device? I'm not sure there's a huge difference.

That seems like a separate question? Like, I'm not strictly opposed to getting into an argument about the line between hardware/firmware/software and if/when/where blobs are tolerable, but in this case it is completely unambiguous that the software Pebble ships includes software that is not open source, while writing a headline that claims they are shipping 100% open source.

Re: Pebble Watch software is now open source

#236

Post by compsciphd »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #235
compsciphd wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the blobs were built into firmware, so didn't need to be shipped, would you then say its a 100% open source software device? I'm not sure there's a huge difference.

That seems like a separate question? Like, I'm not strictly opposed to getting into an argument about the line between hardware/firmware/software and if/when/where blobs are tolerable, but in this case it is completely unambiguous that the software Pebble ships includes software that is not open source, while writing a headline that claims they are shipping 100% open source.

their suite is open source, what's needed to run on a particular hardware device isn't fully open source.

example, could one create a "VM" to run a virtual pebble watch without any of the firmware blobs? (I'm not saying that one exists today, just speaking theoretically, ala a virtual android environment).

Does that mean their software isn't open source? I'd argue no.

One could argue that trying to pass off the pebble watch itself as open source is perhaps "wrong" (but as you say, can debate the value of worrying about blobs), but I don't think that means the "pebble watch software" isn't open source as the title says.

Or better put, there's no legal restrictions on someone creating a "pebble competitor" using the pebble watch with different hardware (that doesn't depend on the blobs included for current hardware).

Post reply on HN