7 ms·

From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree

From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise. They also write at the bottom of their homepage that "f.lux is patent pending." Next to an offer of collaboration with cell phone, display, and lighting system manufacturers. Which is code for "We want money for this." Why do people support this software? Especially on HN, which should know better. This is the kind of software that wants to be free, and could be made better through open source. If you think this is ridiculous (as I do), Redshift[1] is a free, open-source alternative for at least Linux. On Android, ChainFire's CF.lumen[2] at least does not make a patent claim on filtering your display, and allows you to use "Pro Mode" without paying (you simply have to enable "Freeloading" from the main menu). 1: http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ 2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.lumen https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...

monochromatic 11y ago
How is this different from a standard closed-source EULA?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joosters 11y ago
What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add advertising to your computer. (I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)
- lispit 11y ago
  It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production.
  - elipsey 11y ago
    Yep. They care so much about public helath that no one is allowed to be healthier with paying them. Classy move.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      Can't you level that complaint at all pharma firms though too? At least if it doesn't encourage those behind f.lux to continue beneficial activities (promoting the benefit of redshifted screen use) then it should encourage others to develop health focussed apps in the hope of getting paid? FWIW I use redshift.
      - elipsey 11y ago
        Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. Changing a pallete was a solved problem. "Doing something when it's a time" was a solved problem. But if you change a CLUT "becuase it's a time" your software belongs to someone else. It seems like the only innvoation here is observing a need discovered by health researchers, and patenting the existing components of the solution before someone else does. I'm would find it a bit suprising if someone on HN really thought that changing a CLUT because of the time is so hard that no one could figure out how without the promise of a government granted monopoly on the idea. I will hasten to add that actually implementing, marketing, and maintaining a real life multi-platform proprietary solution sounds hard, in the sense of being plenty of work, and I think lots of people would gladly pay for that service. The question we should be asking is: where is the public good in the government intervening to reduce competition in this space by creating a new abstract property right?
forgotpwtomain 11y ago
Not to mention this is a relatively simple thing to implement I think redshift for linux (linked above as [1]) is ~ 10k lines of C code and maybe a few hundred of python-qt.
- coldtea 11y ago
  10k lines of C doesn't mean "simple". Perhaps not in this case, but even an 1K line of C program could need tons of research to be written, extravagant math, etc. There can be 1K programs that are orders of magnitude more complex to write than 100K programs -- e.g. cryptography vs a game engine.
  - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
    I can tell you for sure that adjusting the color temp. of your monitor requires no extravagant math.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      That's why I wrote: "Perhaps not in this case".
tptacek 11y ago
It "wants to be free"? Why does this particular software want to be more free than a word processor?
- striking 11y ago
  I meant that in terms of patent rights. Would you patent a word processor?
takeda 11y ago
Easier to read version of the EULA (without using preformatted text): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise.
- kuschku 11y ago
  > (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); This is already completely null and void in multiple jurisdictions. I don’t think these developers have even consulted a lawyer while writing their EULA.
  - pnt12 11y ago
    Not that I read EULAs often, but I think that's quite a common clause. They do talk about exceptions in some jurisdictions at the end. A bit off-topic, but what I do find hilarious are websites EULAs, when you're not even asked to agree before using the service. Then you somehow discover them in a hidden page and they state "by using this site, you agree with our terms". That seems ludicrous, since you can't agree with a contract that wasn't presented to you. Anyone knows if there was ever any case regarding these?
    - kuschku 11y ago
coldtea 11y ago
>Why do people support this software? Same reason we use Photoshop, Pro Tools, etc: because we like/want the functionality. Build an open source alternative as good, and we'll use that.
- lispit 11y ago
  I could kinda see your point of view in your other posts ITT (though I disagree), but what? The entire point of this discussion is that their patent application is discouraging other people from creating "competitors" (if you can call them that).
  - coldtea 11y ago
    That's the latter part "build an open source alternative as good" that might be problematic due to the patent (then again, if it was obvious somebody should have built it BEFORE they did and thus have prior art). But the first part, "because we like/want the functionality" still holds whether there's a patent or not. If there's no alternative, either because nobody bothered, or because the software is patented, then people will still use it, regardless if it's proprietary or not. Photoshop, the other example I gave, also has tons of patents, proudly listed on their "About" windows.
derefr 11y ago
The incentives align to make me want to support f.lux here, I think. Not because I want f.lux (the product) to win, but because having Flux (the commercial organization) in the market means that they'll "hunger" for that money and use it to push Apple to open the gamma API. Having done so, though, anyone can then use that gamma API. If there's no special advantage to f.lux's patented implementation, then some other (maybe FOSS, maybe not) gamma-shifting app will win the market. If f.lux has especially clever secret sauce in how and when exactly they gamma-shift, then f.lux will win the market. The real question: should someone be able to clone f.lux's (latitude, time, and option-dependent) gamma curve formula without paying f.lux? Is a gamma curve formula patentable? I don't really know. I do know that it's easy enough to create your own that probably works nearly as well without it being f.lux's formula.
austenallred 11y ago
How dare they try to sell what they made!

monochromatic 11y ago

How is this different from a standard closed-source EULA?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

joosters 11y ago

What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add advertising to your computer. (I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)

lispit 11y ago
It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production.
- elipsey 11y ago
  Yep. They care so much about public helath that no one is allowed to be healthier with paying them. Classy move.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Can't you level that complaint at all pharma firms though too? At least if it doesn't encourage those behind f.lux to continue beneficial activities (promoting the benefit of redshifted screen use) then it should encourage others to develop health focussed apps in the hope of getting paid? FWIW I use redshift.
    - elipsey 11y ago
      Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. Changing a pallete was a solved problem. "Doing something when it's a time" was a solved problem. But if you change a CLUT "becuase it's a time" your software belongs to someone else. It seems like the only innvoation here is observing a need discovered by health researchers, and patenting the existing components of the solution before someone else does. I'm would find it a bit suprising if someone on HN really thought that changing a CLUT because of the time is so hard that no one could figure out how without the promise of a government granted monopoly on the idea. I will hasten to add that actually implementing, marketing, and maintaining a real life multi-platform proprietary solution sounds hard, in the sense of being plenty of work, and I think lots of people would gladly pay for that service. The question we should be asking is: where is the public good in the government intervening to reduce competition in this space by creating a new abstract property right?

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

Not to mention this is a relatively simple thing to implement I think redshift for linux (linked above as [1]) is ~ 10k lines of C code and maybe a few hundred of python-qt.

coldtea 11y ago
10k lines of C doesn't mean "simple". Perhaps not in this case, but even an 1K line of C program could need tons of research to be written, extravagant math, etc. There can be 1K programs that are orders of magnitude more complex to write than 100K programs -- e.g. cryptography vs a game engine.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  I can tell you for sure that adjusting the color temp. of your monitor requires no extravagant math.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    That's why I wrote: "Perhaps not in this case".

tptacek 11y ago

It "wants to be free"? Why does this particular software want to be more free than a word processor?

striking 11y ago
I meant that in terms of patent rights. Would you patent a word processor?

takeda 11y ago

Easier to read version of the EULA (without using preformatted text): You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise.

kuschku 11y ago
> (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); This is already completely null and void in multiple jurisdictions. I don’t think these developers have even consulted a lawyer while writing their EULA.
- pnt12 11y ago
  Not that I read EULAs often, but I think that's quite a common clause. They do talk about exceptions in some jurisdictions at the end. A bit off-topic, but what I do find hilarious are websites EULAs, when you're not even asked to agree before using the service. Then you somehow discover them in a hidden page and they state "by using this site, you agree with our terms". That seems ludicrous, since you can't agree with a contract that wasn't presented to you. Anyone knows if there was ever any case regarding these?
  - kuschku 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>Why do people support this software? Same reason we use Photoshop, Pro Tools, etc: because we like/want the functionality. Build an open source alternative as good, and we'll use that.

lispit 11y ago
I could kinda see your point of view in your other posts ITT (though I disagree), but what? The entire point of this discussion is that their patent application is discouraging other people from creating "competitors" (if you can call them that).
- coldtea 11y ago
  That's the latter part "build an open source alternative as good" that might be problematic due to the patent (then again, if it was obvious somebody should have built it BEFORE they did and thus have prior art). But the first part, "because we like/want the functionality" still holds whether there's a patent or not. If there's no alternative, either because nobody bothered, or because the software is patented, then people will still use it, regardless if it's proprietary or not. Photoshop, the other example I gave, also has tons of patents, proudly listed on their "About" windows.

derefr 11y ago

The incentives align to make me want to support f.lux here, I think. Not because I want f.lux (the product) to win, but because having Flux (the commercial organization) in the market means that they'll "hunger" for that money and use it to push Apple to open the gamma API. Having done so, though, anyone can then use that gamma API. If there's no special advantage to f.lux's patented implementation, then some other (maybe FOSS, maybe not) gamma-shifting app will win the market. If f.lux has especially clever secret sauce in how and when exactly they gamma-shift, then f.lux will win the market. The real question: should someone be able to clone f.lux's (latitude, time, and option-dependent) gamma curve formula without paying f.lux? Is a gamma curve formula patentable? I don't really know. I do know that it's easy enough to create your own that probably works nearly as well without it being f.lux's formula.

austenallred 11y ago

How dare they try to sell what they made!