3 ms·

Read again: "The Thread technology will be licensed to members under RAND-RF terms. " RAND-RF = royalty free

forgottenpass 12y ago
I wonder what the catch is. Requiring membership to use a zero-cost technology is a way of enforcing constraints on implementers. If I were to bet, I'd say it's a way of guaranteeing they retain external access to in-home data. Just market it as ensuring interoperability and the apologists will be coming out of the woodwork.
- IanCal 12y ago
  > Requiring membership to use a zero-cost technology is a way of enforcing constraints on implementers. I assume it's so you don't have thousands of non-compliant devices being sold with the same name on them. Avoids the "Oh no, that's spec+- not spec-+, they're not compatible unless you've got a bridge with a chipset with part ID starting with 71204, 71205xxx are not compatible".
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  I think you're likely right: the two worst answers (lock out implementors we don't like, and let's harvest your data while we're at it) are the most likely candidates. As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I hope this dies, and it's yet another nail in the coffin for Google's once-deserved reputation for supporting open ecosystems.
duncan_bayne 12y ago
Read again: to members. You will not be free to implement the technology.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Uh, if membership is free, and ... I'm sure the reason they have membership, unlike the rest of this thread, is that they need someone capable of signing a patent cross-license to keep it royalty free.
  - duncan_bayne 12y ago
    Right. But the fact that one has to become a member of the group means that it's not an open protocol. You have to join the group, there's no indication that membership will be free, and membership rules may change at any time. I agree that there may be good reasons for this, but the existence of those reasons doesn't make the protocol any more open.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      "Right. But the fact that one has to become a member of the group means that it's not an open protocol." What? There are plenty of open protocols produced by membership based groups. I believe you have redefined open to also include some notion of governance, which, while popular, was never the case previously :) If you want to define what you mean by open protocol, that would be helpful, since everyone seems to have a different definition nowadays ...

I wonder what the catch is. Requiring membership to use a zero-cost technology is a way of enforcing constraints on implementers. If I were to bet, I'd say it's a way of guaranteeing they retain external access to in-home data. Just market it as ensuring interoperability and the apologists will be coming out of the woodwork.

IanCal 12y ago
> Requiring membership to use a zero-cost technology is a way of enforcing constraints on implementers. I assume it's so you don't have thousands of non-compliant devices being sold with the same name on them. Avoids the "Oh no, that's spec+- not spec-+, they're not compatible unless you've got a bridge with a chipset with part ID starting with 71204, 71205xxx are not compatible".
duncan_bayne 12y ago
I think you're likely right: the two worst answers (lock out implementors we don't like, and let's harvest your data while we're at it) are the most likely candidates. As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I hope this dies, and it's yet another nail in the coffin for Google's once-deserved reputation for supporting open ecosystems.

duncan_bayne 12y ago

Read again: to members. You will not be free to implement the technology.

DannyBee 12y ago
Uh, if membership is free, and ... I'm sure the reason they have membership, unlike the rest of this thread, is that they need someone capable of signing a patent cross-license to keep it royalty free.
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  Right. But the fact that one has to become a member of the group means that it's not an open protocol. You have to join the group, there's no indication that membership will be free, and membership rules may change at any time. I agree that there may be good reasons for this, but the existence of those reasons doesn't make the protocol any more open.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    "Right. But the fact that one has to become a member of the group means that it's not an open protocol." What? There are plenty of open protocols produced by membership based groups. I believe you have redefined open to also include some notion of governance, which, while popular, was never the case previously :) If you want to define what you mean by open protocol, that would be helpful, since everyone seems to have a different definition nowadays ...