8 ms·

>According to the Pi Foundation, this is because simple peripherals are too easy to clone and they need to recoup their investment in accessory design. I find

>According to the Pi Foundation, this is because simple peripherals are too easy to clone and they need to recoup their investment in accessory design. I find this completely fair, but then maybe don't call yourself a "charity" and an "open platform" and just be upfront that you need to lock down your hardware to recoup the investment.

sokoloff 5y ago
I don’t object to the use of “charity” nearly so much as “open platform” in this case. A charity that gives away some things but not other things is still a charity. A platform that is partially closed is not fully open.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nmstoker 5y ago
  They've always been pretty clear about which parts that simply couldn't open up, due to restrictions beyond their control.
zozbot234 5y ago
It would be way less of a problem if they would commit to removing the DRM by a certain date. At the very least, they should commit to doing that when they stop supporting the platform and making the proprietary addons to it.
codedokode 5y ago
No, this is not fair. If making accessories is not profitable, then don't make them. Instead release the documentation and let others make the accessories.
- Wingy 5y ago
  I understand this as it being profitable to make and sell accessories, but not to engineer the accessories. The engineering is done in the hope of being able to sell the accessory. If they can't sell the accessory, the engineering investment is purely loss.
  - megous 5y ago
    So, not a charity...
    - codeflo 5y ago
      You do realize that most charities sell some things, right?
      - megous 5y ago
        They don't have to be profit oriented, though. They just have to balance the money flow.
        tjoff 5y ago
        And what is protecting your investment to ensure it is not a massive loss, if not balance their money flow?
        megous 5y ago
        Anyway, engineering things to manufacture them and sell for profit is not a charity. It's indistinguishable from normal business. Also Raspberry Pi SBCs and accessories are made by Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd, not by the foundation. If you look up FCC testing reports, it's all submitted by Rpi Trading. That's not charity even legally. https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-ltd-raises-45m/ https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-lt... Charity, right? You wouldn't know from their own website, because they seem to not publicize their business structure very much. My guess that it's similar to mozilla foundation/co split. Foundation does nothing about the products, it's just a public face. And corportaion does all the product work, and is very for profit.
- lloydatkinson 5y ago
  Yeah, this is a dick move for sure. I had no idea the camera was locked down like this. Just plug in a better quality USB camera and you've bypassed the whole protection. Pointless.
- jwr 5y ago
  Anyone can make a camera, there are no restrictions. What is difficult are the algorithms for processing the data that comes off the sensor. The RPI foundation developed a complete solution (camera+software) and they don't want to see copycat cameras make use of their investment in image processing software. I find this to be completely fair game.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Why can't the hardware provide access to the raw sensor data and let freedom-respecting software deal with it?
    - bri3d 5y ago
      It does. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc119a2ba4917e0fecfe5084425830ec53ccb.1505314390.git.dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.org/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc... You can think of the VideoCore ISP firmware task as a proprietary application and the Pi Camera as a hardware security dongle for that proprietary application. You can choose not to run that application and access raw data from CSI if you'd like, but if you want to run the special ISP firmware application, you need the hardware dongle. I think I feel the same way about the DRMed blob as I do about the Pi in general: I understand why the Pi folks did things the way they did, I don't think it's unethical by any stretch, but the situation is disappointing and I would prefer the alternative.
    - jwr 5y ago
      It does. Most people get enraged about RPI cameras unnecessarily. If you don't want to buy cameras from the RPI foundation and want to use/design/connect your own, nobody is stopping you. If you want raw sensor data off the RPI cameras, nobody is stopping you either. It's only when you want to use their image processing with a clone camera that you run into problems. I just can't get worked up about this, I think this is completely fair.
  - dTal 5y ago
    This is the same argument for closed-source GPU drivers. "Oh, my special secret sauce algorithms!" Nah. If you want the cred from being open source, be open source.
ethbr0 5y ago
> then maybe don't call yourself a "charity" The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charitable organization registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales. [0] We can quibble over whether we think they're doing work in the best way, but by authoritative definitions they are a charity. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi_Foundation#Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi_Foundation#Foun...
- paulmd 5y ago
  This is the part where HNers learn that simply being registered as a charity doesn't mean jack shit. Hospital systems that make billions of dollars a year of profit are charities! Companies that own billions of dollars of real estate holdings for no purpose except speculation are charities! Non-profit simply means that profits aren't paid out to shareholders. It doesn't mean you can't make enormous profits and accrue vast amounts of wealth.
  - samhw 5y ago
    Notoriously in England, public schools are charities. My school made god knows how much by offering a few bursaries and thereby counting itself as a charity. My best friend's school, old Slough Comp, is possibly one of the greatest forces of anti-charity and anti-egalitarianism in the country and yet is still - IIRC - a charity. It means absolutely zero whatsoever. Perhaps other countries are different.
    - stuaxo 5y ago
      For people in the US "Public School" in the UK are actually private.
      - akiselev 5y ago
        And "Slough Comp" is a tongue in cheek name for Eton College
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
Angostura 5y ago
Can you name a charity which doesn’t cover its costs and manages to keep operating?
MarcScott 5y ago
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity. It just owns Raspberry Pi Limited which is a tech company. Don't confuse the two. RPL does the hardware and software stuff. RPF is focused purely on education and outreach work, and can do that because RPL provide the money.
BlueTemplar 5y ago
If it were just the peripherals... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001880
LeoPanthera 5y ago
According to Google, the Pi Foundation explicitly does not call itself or the Pi a "open platform". The only hits are from the forum, where people are pointing out that it isn't.

sokoloff 5y ago

I don’t object to the use of “charity” nearly so much as “open platform” in this case. A charity that gives away some things but not other things is still a charity. A platform that is partially closed is not fully open.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nmstoker 5y ago
They've always been pretty clear about which parts that simply couldn't open up, due to restrictions beyond their control.

zozbot234 5y ago

It would be way less of a problem if they would commit to removing the DRM by a certain date. At the very least, they should commit to doing that when they stop supporting the platform and making the proprietary addons to it.

codedokode 5y ago

No, this is not fair. If making accessories is not profitable, then don't make them. Instead release the documentation and let others make the accessories.

Wingy 5y ago
I understand this as it being profitable to make and sell accessories, but not to engineer the accessories. The engineering is done in the hope of being able to sell the accessory. If they can't sell the accessory, the engineering investment is purely loss.
- megous 5y ago
  So, not a charity...
  - codeflo 5y ago
    You do realize that most charities sell some things, right?
    - megous 5y ago
      They don't have to be profit oriented, though. They just have to balance the money flow.
      - tjoff 5y ago
        And what is protecting your investment to ensure it is not a massive loss, if not balance their money flow?
        megous 5y ago
        Anyway, engineering things to manufacture them and sell for profit is not a charity. It's indistinguishable from normal business. Also Raspberry Pi SBCs and accessories are made by Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd, not by the foundation. If you look up FCC testing reports, it's all submitted by Rpi Trading. That's not charity even legally. https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-ltd-raises-45m/ https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-lt... Charity, right? You wouldn't know from their own website, because they seem to not publicize their business structure very much. My guess that it's similar to mozilla foundation/co split. Foundation does nothing about the products, it's just a public face. And corportaion does all the product work, and is very for profit.
lloydatkinson 5y ago
Yeah, this is a dick move for sure. I had no idea the camera was locked down like this. Just plug in a better quality USB camera and you've bypassed the whole protection. Pointless.
jwr 5y ago
Anyone can make a camera, there are no restrictions. What is difficult are the algorithms for processing the data that comes off the sensor. The RPI foundation developed a complete solution (camera+software) and they don't want to see copycat cameras make use of their investment in image processing software. I find this to be completely fair game.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Why can't the hardware provide access to the raw sensor data and let freedom-respecting software deal with it?
  - bri3d 5y ago
    It does. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc119a2ba4917e0fecfe5084425830ec53ccb.1505314390.git.dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.org/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc... You can think of the VideoCore ISP firmware task as a proprietary application and the Pi Camera as a hardware security dongle for that proprietary application. You can choose not to run that application and access raw data from CSI if you'd like, but if you want to run the special ISP firmware application, you need the hardware dongle. I think I feel the same way about the DRMed blob as I do about the Pi in general: I understand why the Pi folks did things the way they did, I don't think it's unethical by any stretch, but the situation is disappointing and I would prefer the alternative.
  - jwr 5y ago
    It does. Most people get enraged about RPI cameras unnecessarily. If you don't want to buy cameras from the RPI foundation and want to use/design/connect your own, nobody is stopping you. If you want raw sensor data off the RPI cameras, nobody is stopping you either. It's only when you want to use their image processing with a clone camera that you run into problems. I just can't get worked up about this, I think this is completely fair.
- dTal 5y ago
  This is the same argument for closed-source GPU drivers. "Oh, my special secret sauce algorithms!" Nah. If you want the cred from being open source, be open source.

ethbr0 5y ago

> then maybe don't call yourself a "charity" The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charitable organization registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales. [0] We can quibble over whether we think they're doing work in the best way, but by authoritative definitions they are a charity. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi_Foundation#Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi_Foundation#Foun...

paulmd 5y ago
This is the part where HNers learn that simply being registered as a charity doesn't mean jack shit. Hospital systems that make billions of dollars a year of profit are charities! Companies that own billions of dollars of real estate holdings for no purpose except speculation are charities! Non-profit simply means that profits aren't paid out to shareholders. It doesn't mean you can't make enormous profits and accrue vast amounts of wealth.
- samhw 5y ago
  Notoriously in England, public schools are charities. My school made god knows how much by offering a few bursaries and thereby counting itself as a charity. My best friend's school, old Slough Comp, is possibly one of the greatest forces of anti-charity and anti-egalitarianism in the country and yet is still - IIRC - a charity. It means absolutely zero whatsoever. Perhaps other countries are different.
  - stuaxo 5y ago
    For people in the US "Public School" in the UK are actually private.
    - akiselev 5y ago
      And "Slough Comp" is a tongue in cheek name for Eton College
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago

Angostura 5y ago

Can you name a charity which doesn’t cover its costs and manages to keep operating?

MarcScott 5y ago

The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity. It just owns Raspberry Pi Limited which is a tech company. Don't confuse the two. RPL does the hardware and software stuff. RPF is focused purely on education and outreach work, and can do that because RPL provide the money.

BlueTemplar 5y ago

If it were just the peripherals... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31001880

LeoPanthera 5y ago

According to Google, the Pi Foundation explicitly does not call itself or the Pi a "open platform". The only hits are from the forum, where people are pointing out that it isn't.