by valerun (Posted Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:45:37 GMT)
Yeah I agree, the juice box is almost a carbon copy. It would have been nice if they contributed to the already established community.
There is no reason they could not have based Juicebox on OpenEVSE. The OpenEVSE licenses allows commercial use with attribution.
Software License GNU GPLv3 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Hardware and documentation Creative Commons v3 BY-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I am not sure what license EMW Juice box will use. Their other "Open Source" product the 12kw Charger does not seem to actually be "open source" at all. The model is source is available only with purchase and only if it is not for commercial use. I hope Juicebox product is different or they are just using "Open Source" as a marketing term...
Open Source as defined by the Open Source Initiative has guidelines based Debian Free Software Guidelines which are:
1.Free redistribution.
2.Inclusion of source code.
3.Allowing for modifications and derived works.
4.Integrity of the author's source code (as a compromise).
5.No discrimination against persons or groups.
6.No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use.
7.The license needs to apply to all to whom the program is redistributed.
from their website:
Good points, Chris.
We are moving all our open source projects into GPL license domain. JuiceBox will be the same, as well.
We are going to start posting the files next week.
Technically, we probably could have forked from the Open-EVSE. But a part of why we didn't was that we are planning to have a number of [potentially] closed-source derivatives for commercial use once we get this thing certified and start going after commercial networks. Just makes it easier that way.
In retrospect, we should probably have thought a bit more about pin compatibility, yes.
In fact, we'd be thrilled if we can get Open-EVSE working on our hardware at some point. This way the community could benefit from the amount of energy we've put into the component sourcing, enclosure design, etc. Perhaps we should chat about this once we put this project on production rails (which should be later this month).
Thanks,
Valery
chris1howell wrote:
QueenBee wrote:
It's too bad they aren't just building upon the OpenEVSE design.
Yeah I agree, the juice box is almost a carbon copy. It would have been nice if they contributed to the already established community.
There is no reason they could not have based Juicebox on OpenEVSE. The OpenEVSE licenses allows commercial use with attribution.
Software License GNU GPLv3 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Hardware and documentation Creative Commons v3 BY-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I am not sure what license EMW Juice box will use. Their other "Open Source" product the 12kw Charger does not seem to actually be "open source" at all. The model is source is available only with purchase and only if it is not for commercial use. I hope Juicebox product is different or they are just using "Open Source" as a marketing term...
Open Source as defined by the Open Source Initiative has guidelines based Debian Free Software Guidelines which are:
1.Free redistribution.
2.Inclusion of source code.
3.Allowing for modifications and derived works.
4.Integrity of the author's source code (as a compromise).
5.No discrimination against persons or groups.
6.No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use.
7.The license needs to apply to all to whom the program is redistributed.
from their website:
Quote:
open-source (for non-commercial use only)
Quote:
If you have bought a kit from us, you will be provided a special link to access all the technical information on the charger & kits. Contact us at charger@eMotorWerks.comThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you have not received this documentation with your package
Good points, Chris.
We are moving all our open source projects into GPL license domain. JuiceBox will be the same, as well.
We are going to start posting the files next week.
Technically, we probably could have forked from the Open-EVSE. But a part of why we didn't was that we are planning to have a number of [potentially] closed-source derivatives for commercial use once we get this thing certified and start going after commercial networks. Just makes it easier that way.
In retrospect, we should probably have thought a bit more about pin compatibility, yes.
In fact, we'd be thrilled if we can get Open-EVSE working on our hardware at some point. This way the community could benefit from the amount of energy we've put into the component sourcing, enclosure design, etc. Perhaps we should chat about this once we put this project on production rails (which should be later this month).
Thanks,
Valery