4 ms·

Answer, also quotes in the post: > If developers choose not to join Thread Group and ship products using Thread technology, they are not conferred the IP right

Answer, also quotes in the post: > If developers choose not to join Thread Group and ship products using Thread technology, they are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology, and may subject themselves to legal action, including but not limited to licensing fees. It feels like even sharing my designs run a major risk of landing me in trouble. This sounds catastrophically hostile to open source in general. If I ever want to make use of what I've built in any even remotely commercial setting, everything I've built feels liable to be infected & polluted with this copyright. I could rip out Threads & still not feel safe. I definitely can't sell a couple copies of this cool thing to other hobbyists on indiegogo. The terms of use essentially outlaw community. Yes, maybe hobbyists can play with this, but they cannot form communities, they cannot share wisdom, they can't sell boards to each other, they can't even talk about the protocol or spec on detail. So yeah, hobbyists arent expressly forbidden. But having any community of hobbyists seems fraught with difficulties. You can only hobbyist by yourself, discussing with no one. Fuck Threads.

IanCal 3y ago
Hang on that's a huge leap. > Yes, maybe hobbyists can play with this, but they cannot form communities, they cannot share wisdom, they can't sell boards to each other, they can't even talk about the protocol or spec on detail. But it just says you can't ship products and talking isn't shipping a product. The only part I see there is what if you sell things built on it. Like sure it could be more open and sure having some small business exemption would be good but that's not the same as not being allowed to just make some stuff and talk about it.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  What do you think they mean by this: > Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    That if you are a corporation that wants to use this tech in your products (devices) you are advised to join Thread Group as soon as possible because you'll be required to do that when you ship stuff anyways. Possibly compelled by court if you resist. They probably didn't expect interest from singular hobbyists, let alone hobbyists reading what they put out in the most uncharitable fashion. They have some clarifying to do if they decide that they care.
    - ang_cire 3y ago
      You are ignoring "practice", which in this context means any kind of operational use, including things like research (they also specify "implementation" separately, to explicitly cover development of products). Practice here is as in "practice medicine", not "practice for tryouts".
      - scotty79 3y ago
        "practice" here probably means use in your business of manufacturing devices
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > "practice" here probably means use in your business of manufacturing devices "probably"? It's a legal document that lists the things you may not do as vaguely and as broad as possible, and lists suing you as the first recourse in their remediation. It's unwise to err on the side of "allowed" instead of erring on the side of "disallowed".
        scotty79 3y ago
        It's unwise to err on either side. The license doesn't contain phrase "you do not blog about Thread or we'll sue you". Because that's not what they meant, because it's ridiculous. There's only a singular threat in the license is here: "Failure to maintain active Thread Group membership while shipping Thread technology may result in legal action, including but not limited to licensing fees." It specifically mentions shipping.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  You're talking to the question, but the answer is even more conservative & scary than the question posed, > are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology, Under this, it sounds like one isn't even allowed to dabble with Thread without $7.5k/year membership. You aren't allowed to practice is the words they respond with, which seems far more constraining than shipping. Re-quoting the licensing agreement requires to download the spec, > view, download, save, reproduce and use the Specification solely for your own internal purposes > are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology, > Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications. So yeah, actually it seems like even doing hobbyist things by yourself & telling no one is still far more than Thread group allows. Fuck Thread! It's just so unbelievably shitty having the connected device technologies of our world be un-practiceable by mere mortals.
  - IanCal 3y ago
    and ship.
    - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
      As a software engineer, our confidence that and means "both of these things" is high. I feel like you're taking quite a gamble doing that in law. Anyone posting to a blog might also be regarded as shipping. You're also focusing on one gotcha while ignoring the other terrifying clauses here. Are you still using the spec for internal purposes if you are talking about it? IANAL but I strongly recommend any hobbyists or open source people steer the hell clear. These are terms for no engagement other than those willing to pay the anual fee.
  - singpolyma3 3y ago
    Not conferred the rights to practice and ship, but if there's something which doesn't require such rights (such are private home tinkering) then not having rights conferred isn't an issue. Not saying that forgives this abysmal licensing regime of course.
- denschub 3y ago
  Lawyers have little issue defining blogs like mine as "with commercial interest". I have a side-business, so lawyers could make the argument that I use my blog as advertising. I have a Ko-Fi link in the bottom of one specific site, that's a commercial interest, too. Unless your blog is "I'm sharing holiday photos and nothing else", there's a lot of instances where it could be define as an outlet with commercial interests. And, ultimately, I have no desire to spend any time and money on fighting even completely invalid claims. I'd rather spend my time watching cat videos on YouTube instead.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    But their licensing doesn't care about commercial interests or lack of there of. It only reserves right to charge you if you ship a product. And by product they most obviously mean a device and by ship they obviously mean sell (or gift, or possibly rent) to some customers. All of this sounds like a thunderstorm in a glass of water by people who read too many software licenses.
    - denschub 3y ago
      This is not what the license says.
      - scotty79 3y ago
        Yes. It's what it means.
        denschub 3y ago
        It's baffling that some people here can read a sentence like > Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications. And somehow think that the restrictions only apply when you "ship", but not when you "implement" or "practice".
        scotty79 3y ago
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Then don't use this or teach it. Don't build for it. Isolate it. Let it die. Cut off its supply. Make it irrelevant. Exclude it from connectivity options by default, out of caution. It seems pointless to complain that you can't have a bite of the poison fruit. But also make sure others know. Actively warn and discourage other developers away from that technology. Make "Threads" regret their lack of openness.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  The problem is that individuals cannot cut it out, because big tech firms use it pretty widely. It's basically a moat that allows companies to ship products using a shared standard, but makes it impossible for individual developers to (especially ones who aren't actively trying to start a business, but even then, $7500 a year is a lot for a garage-level startup for a technical standard). Imagine how much less innovation there would be if it cost $7,500 a year to write anything that uses the Internet Protocol suite of standards.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    I don't like to make predictions, but I think it will all eventually be swept away by forced open interoperability that is coming in strong from Europe. I don't feel any loss for independent developers who feel excluded from proprietary, locked "markets". It's saving them from wasting time. Let's check-in again on this situation in a couple of years. I'll bet "threads" is not even on the map. In the long game it always pays to go with the most free, open and interoperable standards, even if it limits opportunities in the short term.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> hobbyists aren't expressly forbidden. Also, I don't think it helps to use this word "hobbyists". The entire world runs on free open source software written by unpaid volunteers who are poorly supported, isolated, and exploited by mega tech corporations that are parasitical on their work. "hobbyists" sounds demeaning, It makes it sound like the great under-structure of common coding is somehow less-than-serious, somehow outside some commercial ecosystem rather than the very soil and food that sustains it. This (self) perception needs to change. Big Tech would die tomorrow without the "hobbyists" it depends on.

IanCal 3y ago

Hang on that's a huge leap. > Yes, maybe hobbyists can play with this, but they cannot form communities, they cannot share wisdom, they can't sell boards to each other, they can't even talk about the protocol or spec on detail. But it just says you can't ship products and talking isn't shipping a product. The only part I see there is what if you sell things built on it. Like sure it could be more open and sure having some small business exemption would be good but that's not the same as not being allowed to just make some stuff and talk about it.

lelanthran 3y ago
What do you think they mean by this: > Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications.
- scotty79 3y ago
  That if you are a corporation that wants to use this tech in your products (devices) you are advised to join Thread Group as soon as possible because you'll be required to do that when you ship stuff anyways. Possibly compelled by court if you resist. They probably didn't expect interest from singular hobbyists, let alone hobbyists reading what they put out in the most uncharitable fashion. They have some clarifying to do if they decide that they care.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    You are ignoring "practice", which in this context means any kind of operational use, including things like research (they also specify "implementation" separately, to explicitly cover development of products). Practice here is as in "practice medicine", not "practice for tryouts".
    - scotty79 3y ago
      "practice" here probably means use in your business of manufacturing devices
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        > "practice" here probably means use in your business of manufacturing devices "probably"? It's a legal document that lists the things you may not do as vaguely and as broad as possible, and lists suing you as the first recourse in their remediation. It's unwise to err on the side of "allowed" instead of erring on the side of "disallowed".
        scotty79 3y ago
        It's unwise to err on either side. The license doesn't contain phrase "you do not blog about Thread or we'll sue you". Because that's not what they meant, because it's ridiculous. There's only a singular threat in the license is here: "Failure to maintain active Thread Group membership while shipping Thread technology may result in legal action, including but not limited to licensing fees." It specifically mentions shipping.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
You're talking to the question, but the answer is even more conservative & scary than the question posed, > are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology, Under this, it sounds like one isn't even allowed to dabble with Thread without $7.5k/year membership. You aren't allowed to practice is the words they respond with, which seems far more constraining than shipping. Re-quoting the licensing agreement requires to download the spec, > view, download, save, reproduce and use the Specification solely for your own internal purposes > are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology, > Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications. So yeah, actually it seems like even doing hobbyist things by yourself & telling no one is still far more than Thread group allows. Fuck Thread! It's just so unbelievably shitty having the connected device technologies of our world be un-practiceable by mere mortals.
- IanCal 3y ago
  and ship.
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    As a software engineer, our confidence that and means "both of these things" is high. I feel like you're taking quite a gamble doing that in law. Anyone posting to a blog might also be regarded as shipping. You're also focusing on one gotcha while ignoring the other terrifying clauses here. Are you still using the spec for internal purposes if you are talking about it? IANAL but I strongly recommend any hobbyists or open source people steer the hell clear. These are terms for no engagement other than those willing to pay the anual fee.
- singpolyma3 3y ago
  Not conferred the rights to practice and ship, but if there's something which doesn't require such rights (such are private home tinkering) then not having rights conferred isn't an issue. Not saying that forgives this abysmal licensing regime of course.
denschub 3y ago
Lawyers have little issue defining blogs like mine as "with commercial interest". I have a side-business, so lawyers could make the argument that I use my blog as advertising. I have a Ko-Fi link in the bottom of one specific site, that's a commercial interest, too. Unless your blog is "I'm sharing holiday photos and nothing else", there's a lot of instances where it could be define as an outlet with commercial interests. And, ultimately, I have no desire to spend any time and money on fighting even completely invalid claims. I'd rather spend my time watching cat videos on YouTube instead.
- scotty79 3y ago
  But their licensing doesn't care about commercial interests or lack of there of. It only reserves right to charge you if you ship a product. And by product they most obviously mean a device and by ship they obviously mean sell (or gift, or possibly rent) to some customers. All of this sounds like a thunderstorm in a glass of water by people who read too many software licenses.
  - denschub 3y ago
    This is not what the license says.
    - scotty79 3y ago
      Yes. It's what it means.
      - denschub 3y ago
        It's baffling that some people here can read a sentence like > Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications. And somehow think that the restrictions only apply when you "ship", but not when you "implement" or "practice".
        scotty79 3y ago

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Then don't use this or teach it. Don't build for it. Isolate it. Let it die. Cut off its supply. Make it irrelevant. Exclude it from connectivity options by default, out of caution. It seems pointless to complain that you can't have a bite of the poison fruit. But also make sure others know. Actively warn and discourage other developers away from that technology. Make "Threads" regret their lack of openness.

ang_cire 3y ago
The problem is that individuals cannot cut it out, because big tech firms use it pretty widely. It's basically a moat that allows companies to ship products using a shared standard, but makes it impossible for individual developers to (especially ones who aren't actively trying to start a business, but even then, $7500 a year is a lot for a garage-level startup for a technical standard). Imagine how much less innovation there would be if it cost $7,500 a year to write anything that uses the Internet Protocol suite of standards.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  I don't like to make predictions, but I think it will all eventually be swept away by forced open interoperability that is coming in strong from Europe. I don't feel any loss for independent developers who feel excluded from proprietary, locked "markets". It's saving them from wasting time. Let's check-in again on this situation in a couple of years. I'll bet "threads" is not even on the map. In the long game it always pays to go with the most free, open and interoperable standards, even if it limits opportunities in the short term.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> hobbyists aren't expressly forbidden. Also, I don't think it helps to use this word "hobbyists". The entire world runs on free open source software written by unpaid volunteers who are poorly supported, isolated, and exploited by mega tech corporations that are parasitical on their work. "hobbyists" sounds demeaning, It makes it sound like the great under-structure of common coding is somehow less-than-serious, somehow outside some commercial ecosystem rather than the very soil and food that sustains it. This (self) perception needs to change. Big Tech would die tomorrow without the "hobbyists" it depends on.