4 ms·

Wouldn't this be a little tricky if such a step can expose proprietary parts in the closed-off products, given that one can expect a reasonable rate of reuse?

• ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Given that Revolv's server software was presumably running before Nest acquired them, and from all rumors, not improved since, what possible proprietary Nest code could it have?
  • ceejayoz 11y ago
    Who said it was Nest's? Maybe it runs on Oracle. Maybe it has third-party stuff licensed for their use but not open source distribution.
  • sirclueless 11y ago
    The really hairy stuff is usually not the first-party proprietary stuff (e.g. "This stuff is so important to our business we need to keep an exclusive license.") It's usually possible to make an argument to the right business-person that the cost is not so high when compared with the extra brand goodwill and free maintenance. Rather it's the third-party proprietary stuff. Someone else owns proprietary code you deeply rely on but doesn't share any of your business goals and needs. And when dealing with hardware, there is a whole raft of firmware and drivers that could be licensed this way.
• dclowd9901 11y ago
  If you care about proprietary tech, it's not going to be with a product you've kicked to the curb. Besides all anyone really needs to support the hardware is a firmware version that allows net configuration and its api.
• Nullabillity 11y ago
  Then you keep running the official servers..? There shouldn't be a third option available here.