Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#2Google Brillo and Weave are essentially providing the same functions for Google's evosystem for IoT which connects to Google Cloud Platform. How does Flogo compare with Brillo + Weave?
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#3>Internal Use Only License Grant. TIBCO hereby grants you a limited, non‐transferable, non‐exclusive license to use the software solely for your internal business purposes.
"open source"
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#4>Internal Use Only License Grant. TIBCO hereby grants you a limited, non‐transferable, non‐exclusive license to use the software solely for your internal business purposes. "open source"
open source != free software
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#5>Internal Use Only License Grant. TIBCO hereby grants you a limited, non‐transferable, non‐exclusive license to use the software solely for your internal business purposes. "open source"
open source != free software
You're absolutely right, of course. But I never implied it was. I highly doubt this would be an OSI approved license.
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#6>Internal Use Only License Grant. TIBCO hereby grants you a limited, non‐transferable, non‐exclusive license to use the software solely for your internal business purposes. "open source"
open source != free software
Pedants would probably agree that this is a true statement, but it is also not relevant. The project itself claims it is open source and the parent claims it isn't. No one mentioned the free software movement.
Parent is pointing out that the license lacks some provisions commonly required to be considered "open source" -- a better term for what is presented might be "disclosed source" or "visible source."
Defining open source can be a point of contention, but the license in question is pretty far away from most accepted definitions. There's not even a right to modify the code. Note that this license appears to be only on the base project that seems to contain nothing beyond documentation and samples.
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#7I have been doing "IoT" for 10 years and after checking the website and the github repo I still have no clue about what flogo does.
Isn't it like some basic http api for "triggers"? Is this what people think IoT is about?
More importantly, can these basic set ups make money for some?
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#8>Internal Use Only License Grant. TIBCO hereby grants you a limited, non‐transferable, non‐exclusive license to use the software solely for your internal business purposes. "open source"
I want to point out that this license applies only to the base project, which only contains some documentation and samples.
If you look at flogo-cli or one of the other linked projects, the license appears to grant more rights. It looks like it's in the BSD-style but I can't be bothered to scroll the long lines to read the whole thing.
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#9I have been doing "IoT" for 10 years and after checking the website and the github repo I still have no clue about what flogo does. Isn't it like some basic http api for "triggers"? Is this what people think IoT is about? More importantly, can these basic set ups make money for some?
Agreed. It also doesn't solve the biggest it challenge which is giving each thing a unique identity and a means to prove its identity. I find that real-time event processing had been solved already through dataflow and Apache Beam. Along with generic pub sub systems.
Re: Project Flogo – Open Source Framework for IoT Integration
#10It should be an IoT integration framework, which has 3,3 MB. That sound huge to me. If I have an embedded processor that has 1 MB of Flash, than that is already huge. Still this has to fit my application besides that framework.