4 ms·
I am unwilling to accept an SDK's license in order to view my own data produced by my own hardware. So, a couple years ago, I wrote a bash-wrapper [1] to Suto'
by ISL 9y ago
I am unwilling to accept an SDK's license in order to view my own data produced by my own hardware.
So, a couple years ago, I wrote a bash-wrapper [1] to Suto's perl FIT-parsing library [2]. With a quick search, I see that others may have extended Suto's work [3].
I'm pro-Garmin but can't understand hiding a measurement instrument's output format behind a closed-door license.
[1] https://github.com/4kbt/ParseVivosmartHR https://github.com/4kbt/ParseVivosmartHR
[2] http://pub.ks-and-ks.ne.jp/cycling/GarminFIT.shtml http://pub.ks-and-ks.ne.jp/cycling/GarminFIT.shtml
[3] https://github.com/mrihtar/Garmin-FIT https://github.com/mrihtar/Garmin-FIT
- sliverstorm 9y agoIsn't SDK licensing pretty normal, outside of open source?
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago> outside of open source Yes? By definition, if it's not open source, then you're looking at a proprietary license of some sort.
- sliverstorm 9y agoWhat I meant is the outside-of-companies open source community. It's not weird for a company to license their SDK, no matter what it's for. Par for the course rather.
- mhluongo 9y agoThat's not by definition at all- a work can be open source with a "proprietary license of some sort", or closed source, with source that's liberally licensed- but never published.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago"Shared source"?
- ISL 9y agoThe trouble is that the FIT file specification, in addition to the parsing libraries, is behind the license. It is possible to state the definition of a file format without opening any proprietary code.