THEORY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It is very sad that I have to make this post Yet when a company clearly steals the very laborious effort that we have put in to a driver for close to a year and claims this is a new and revolutionary update to their own driver, I feel I cannot let this slide as our developer has put in an immense effort and this is clearly not fair. We had trusted a few users on here to beta our driver and we have it down to 2 we feel are the ones that passed the driver along to this company. The sad thing is the plans we had for this driver would benefit all end users of Control4. Yet for purely monetary gain this company instead of improving their drivers through research, and hard work. They chose to take the easy way, and in the process did a poor job of rewriting our code, I could care less that our code was seen, or that they have this ability, you can also gather we have this ability and that is how we know they have ripped off our code. We even left a few tidbits in the driver in case this were to happen. When such a scenario presented itself back in September 2013 with another developer. This community as well as that developer asked for that person (whole stole the code) to do the right thing and admit such wrong doing. That developer (previous victim) now sells his drivers under the umbrella of the latest thief. It will be interesting to see the response of the community in regards to what is happening in our case. (Previous Victim aligned with the latest thief) I really wish that after seeing the code they had the abilities to learn from it and add their own flavour and improve upon it at the very least. Obviously not very bright in not even waiting for an updated encryption from Control4 and hiding behind that. There is not a single driver they have developed that shows they even have the know how to make this code on their own. We can see all their code, yet we have chosen not to steal any of it or claim it to be our own, as a matter of fact we don't care to look at it as their is nothing of value in the code. Next time they want to have someone try and rewrite code they don't understand they may want to do a better job and not lock up or crash peoples controllers. I'm proud to say our developer has never crashed a controller and it was humbling to see when they tried to rewrite ours their was zero they could do to improve upon what we produced and in the process of re-writing to try and hide the theft made the code worse and unstable. Just for proof that we have seen their drivers they left this message in some of theirs.--ATTENTION CONTROL4--IF YOU ARE READING THIS THEN YOU ARE VERY VERY NAUGHTY! - please email bill@theft.com for a bonus prize They don't deserve a penny they make off this driver going forward! As was said before this doesn't help innovation it kills it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 PM sent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgreen4544 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 which driver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdepaola Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Well thats disturbing... Its also disturbing because an announcement was made today about an updated driver and I'm afraid the coincidence could lead to unfortunate confusion. Why do people feel the need to do this? This is a rather small community and I don't envision anyone is going to get rich off selling drivers, I'd love to know the attraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qVAMPIREp Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 That sucks... Please provide more info so we can get the tar and feathers ready... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'm more curious as to who's selling? I'm a bit confused - Control4 is? Some other 3rd party developer? Whatever/whomever, can't say anything other than: Sorry to hear this seems to have happened (again) - sad that this continues to occur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEORY Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 You can gather who it is based on my post. There is no unfortunate confusion. We have not released this driver except in a limited Beta as we wanted it to work perfectly. There was no limitation in our code but in working with the proxy C4 provides and us wanting to give a certain experience. This is how we have narrowed down the point which the driver came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanE Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Seems to me that: 1) You should really be taking this up with the person you have the beef with.2) You say it's been rewritten to the point that it crashes the controller. Alternate *THEORY*... they wrote it themselves.3) He said / she said with a company that's had an existing driver released with a lot of functionality for a *looong* time now isn't the same as what happened to Alan's driver last year. I'm sorry you think you've got some kind of infringement going on, but you're the only one who's admitted looking at someone else's driver. RyanE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanchow Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I'm more curious as to who's selling? I'm a bit confused - Control4 is? Some other 3rd party developer? Whatever/whomever, can't say anything other than: Sorry to hear this seems to have happened (again) - sad that this continues to occur He is referring to me and extra vegetables. When such a scenario presented itself back in September 2013 with another developer this community as well as that developer asked for that person to do the right thing and admit such wrong doing. That developer now sells his drivers under the umbrella of the latest theif. It will be interesting to see the response of the community in regards to what is happening in our case. What i am concerned about though is that THEORY has admitted to reverse engineering peoples code. Should i be concerned that he is looking at mine? We can see all their code, yet we have chosen not to steal any of it or claim it to be our own, as a matter of fact we don't care to look at it as their is nothing of value in the code. Just for proof that we have seen their drivers they left this message in some of theirs.--ATTENTION CONTROL4--IF YOU ARE READING THIS THEN YOU ARE VERY VERY NAUGHTY! - please email bill@theft.com for a bonus prize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEORY Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 Theory is talking about Extra Vegetables. The developer who got his code stolen is me. Having said that though EV has had their sonos driver for many many years so i am skeptical about them stealing code to make theirs better. What i am concerned about though is that you THEORY have admitted to reverse engineering peoples code. Should i be concerned that you are looking at mine? If so i will be holding back my really really cool drivers until post 2.6.Not a single driver exists beyond our WeMo and Sonos driver that has a functional UPnP architecture. Now another one exists clearly written off ours yet very poorly done. In order to know how secure our drivers are we need to know the lay of the land. There isn't a single thing we have produced that isn't built from the ground up. I'm willing to bet Alan you have reversed engineered many things to get to where you are, I also trust that you used it to learn and not to steal. Don't be a hypocrite when it suits. Come to think of it Ryan even tried to help you with your Wemo driver and lead you down the path of UPnP for your driver yet you didn't have a grasp of it and chose to stick with a traditional polling driver, We already has our functional with UPnP and didn't mind helping you move in that direction. Call it what you like but sounds like being on the side of the cash cow is different from when it happened to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEORY Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 Seems to me that: 1) You should really be taking this up with the person you have the beef with.2) You say it's been rewritten to the point that it crashes the controller. Alternate *THEORY*... they wrote it themselves.3) He said / she said with a company that's had an existing driver released with a lot of functionality for a *looong* time now isn't the same as what happened to Alan's driver last year. I'm sorry you think you've got some kind of infringement going on, but you're the only one who's admitted looking at someone else's driver. RyanEI suggest that even though you claim to post personally you ARE speaking on behalf of Control4 24 hours a day and you walk a fine line with posts and PM's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyknight Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 He is referring to me and extra vegetables. What i am concerned about though is that THEORY has admitted to reverse engineering peoples code. Should i be concerned that he is looking at mine? I gathered he meant you (/ Recluse) concerning the 'other' incident - no doubt there.So I assume he's talking about the new EV Sonos version? - only saw that after seeing this post.I'll take care not to take sides in the dispute knowing near to nothing, but I heard EV was working on a revision prior to hearing that TheoryAV was working on one - not that that as such means code stealing is not possible regardless. A serious accusation non the less, and one I assume Theory has already taken up with them prior to posting. Perhaps somewhat premature to post here, but I can imagine the frustration if he believes it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanchow Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Not a single driver exists beyond our WeMo and Sonos driver that has a functional UPnP architecture. Now another one exists clearly written off ours yet very poorly down. In order to know how secure our drivers are we need to know the lay of the land. There isn't a single thing we have produced that isn't built from the ground up. I'm will to be Alan you have reversed engineered many things to get to where you are. Come to think of it Ryan even tried to help you with your Wemo driver and lead you down the path of UPnP for your driver yet you didn't have a grasp of it and chose to stick with a traditional polling driver, We already has our functional with UPnP and didn't mind helping you move in that direction. Call it what you like but sounds like being on the side of the cash cow is different from when it happened to you. I can honestly say that i have never decrypted someone elses Control4 driver. Nor do i have any intention of doing so ever. Not only does it violate Control4's software development agreement it is just morally wrong. Anyway you still haven't answered my question. Have you or have you not decrypted my drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanE Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I suggest that even though you claim to post personally you ARE speaking on behalf of Control4 24 hours a day and you walk a fine line with posts and PM's Nice threat. I certainly walk as fine a line as I think necessary. I am not taking sides, but I will at least say that there *are* two sides to every story, which it appears to me you're unwilling to even consider. There are only a certain number of ways to implement uPnP. There are only a limited number of ways to interface with specific Control4 proxies. There are only a limited number of ways in the Sonos API to effectively control it. One-sided, public accusations of wrongdoing are wrong. RyanE P.S. I am obviously stating *my own* opinions, which Control4 still allows me to have from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEORY Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 Having the ability to do something and doing it are two totally different things. As I said there are tidbits in the code that exist that show where things have originated. Call it one sided, they are free to defend themselves, we also have all our code history. Profiting as they do off drivers when they have not done the bulk of learning what that code does or how it works is not fair and wrong. I know it's hard to believe your friends and heros have done wrong but passing off works that are not based on their own efforts is theft. It's also nice how the fine line you walk is as you see necessary. Whatever works in the others favour when they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEORY Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 I certainly walk as fine a line as I think necessary. I am not taking sides, but I will at least say that there *are* two sides to every story, which it appears to me you're unwilling to even consider. There are only a certain number of ways to implement uPnP. There are only a limited number of ways to interface with specific Control4 proxies. There are only a limited number of ways in the Sonos API to effectively control it. As I stated above, look at the code, see what we did and how. But not being able to comprehend what they did, or make it functional and a pretty obvious rip off. What would this other side of the story be? They saw it couldn't really rewrite it, tried, doesn't work very well. But let's push it out there anyways? I will holy agree there are only so many ways to work with the various API's be it 3rd party or C4's, and the proxies etc etc. Renaming functions and rewriting code marginally are not items that fit within those bounds of being acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanE Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 My personal opinion is that: 1) EV does have enough talented developers to have both the ability and the drive to do uPnP. It's not rocket science. 2) If they were to steal your code (which I certainly doubt -- see #1 above), they wouldn't be stupid enough to not rewrite it well enough to: * Not crash Director * Not look like your code. That's a pretty low baseline. I believe I helped a developer of yours with some code at some point in the past. I hope you don't assume everything I've written since seeing that code 2 years ago is poorly rewritten Theory-owned code. BTW, I didn't decrypt it. I don't decrypt others' code. If someone wants help from me, I request that they send me an unencrypted copy of the code. I'm not going to be judge and jury for this little spat, I have no desire to decrypt anyone's drivers without their permission on a witch hunt. With that, I've said all I need to say about this. I hope you find some satisfaction. RyanE P.S. Still my personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEORY Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 My personal opinion is that: 1) EV does have enough talented developers to have both the ability and the drive to do uPnP. It's not rocket science. 2) If they were to steal your code (which I certainly doubt -- see #1 above), they wouldn't be stupid enough to not rewrite it well enough to: * Not crash Director * Not look like your code. That's a pretty low baseline. I believe I helped a developer of yours with some code at some point in the past. I hope you don't assume everything I've written since seeing that code 2 years ago is poorly rewritten Theory-owned code. BTW, I didn't decrypt it. I don't decrypt others' code. If someone wants help from me, I request that they send me an unencrypted copy of the code. I'm not going to be judge and jury for this little spat, I have no desire to decrypt anyone's drivers without their permission on a witch hunt. With that, I've said all I need to say about this. I hope you find some satisfaction. RyanE P.S. Still my personal opinion.I guess everyone has different standards for the point which true talent starts. You seem awfully familiar with their developers and operation. You helped him with some lua and workings of the C4 API. I'm guessing you have extremely limited rights to any code you produce used within the Control4 ecosystem. To the point you would be acting on behalf of C4 on this board even if you'd like it to be personal, anything you would help with or provide would have zero rights by you and would be held with C4. The little Control4 flag above your avatar solidifies you speak on their behalf 24/7 like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanchow Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Anyway you still haven't answered my question. Have you or have you not decrypted my drivers? Still haven't answered my question. Have you or have you not decrypted my drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericscales Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Alan, I don't think he cares right now at this point (nor should he be expected to). Think about how you felt when Bruno blatantly stole your code for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berazafi Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wappinghigh Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth_j Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.