«

On 6/9/2011 11:27 AM, DanP wrote:
> On Jun 9, 3:10 pm, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 6/9/2011 9:46 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> DanP wrote:
>>
>>>> Suppose I have my car's ECU remapped (chipped) so I get more power out
>>>> of the engine. Would that break any manufacturer's rights?
>>
>>> Some of our customers are third party ECU developers who independently
>>> produce alternative code sets. Most notably the 500 - 1500 mile engines
>>> used in competitive racing. NASCAR for example in 2012. The same code
>>> sets can be used in street cars. Most of these trade engine life and
>>> fuel economy for performance.
>>
>>> All of the third party code sets that I know about have appropriate code
>>> licensing. It is primarily a myth about hacked ECU code magically providing
>>> dramatic performance improvements. Getting rid of RPM limiters in hacked
>>> code generally would be an invitation for broken valve springs and bearing
>>> failures in street cars. It is a self correcting problem
>>
>> It seems to me that using hacked code could void warrantys
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> CHDK is run from a prepared SD card. After replacing the card with a
> blank one there is no trace CHDK was run on that camera.
> So unless the user hands in the camera with CHDK on it or admits using
> it Canon has to service it.


In a car?

--
Peter

DanP wrote:

> > All of the third party code sets that I know about have appropriate code
> > licensing. It is primarily a myth about hacked ECU code magically providing
> > dramatic performance improvements. Getting rid of RPM limiters in hacked
> > code generally would be an invitation for broken valve springs and bearing
> > failures in street cars. It is a self correcting problem
> >
> > Walter Banks
> > Byte Craft Limited
>
> But the user can use non licensed codes, right? Losing the warranty of
> course.
> No car manufacturer would object to it, only advise against it.
>

It is like any third party add on. Third parties develop original work or
a combination of licensed and original IP Owners can use the software
it at their own risk.

CHDK is mostly Canon's unlicensed IP and that is where the issues
start to come into it. There is original IP in CHDK that could have
been turned into an interesting product in my opinion. There is other
third party code written to support Canon camera's licensed through
Canon's SDK.

w..

Walter Banks <> wrote:
> Bruce wrote:

>> Calling CHDK "reverse engineering" is rather emotive. It isn't like
>> Sigma reverse engineering the Canon EOS lens/camera interface in order
>> to make millions of bucks out of selling cheap lenses for Canon
>> (D)SLRs. I can see why that would upset Canon, and perhaps it should
>> upset other people too.

> There is a difference? Someone breaks into your house and steals
> your Beatles Butcher LP and someone else breaks in and steals
> a laptop. I think they have committed the same crime.

You mean someone I sold my house, including the laptop and Beatles
Butcher LP, to, entering said house and putting both in a StarTrek
replicator to create a copy for themselves?

And that is forbidden because I locked the door before selling
the house?

And that is amoral because they might also in the business of
selling houses and now might place the LP and the laptop in
their houses, *instead* of Mona Lisa copies and fridges and big
TV screens?

And that is amoral because they might offer cool programs for said
laptop for anyone to copy for free, which work on most Canon-built
houses with Beatles Butcher LP and laptop?

Neither is illegal, btw.

>> Things would be different if someone was making money out of CHDK. But
>> no-one is. Everyone gains, including Canon - because they get
>> improvements in the feature sets of various Canon PowerShot cameras
>> without having to pay for, or support them. Win/win.

> Canon gets to support all the people who screw up the loader in
> the camera

You don't understand CHDK at all, do you?

> trying to install CHDK and complains of noise in modified
> feature high ISO images.

If they don't complain about the noise in the high ISO settings
on board, I doubt they'll complain about the noise in the higher
ISO settings.

> I don't think it is a win for them.

They get to sell more cameras.
Of course that is no win for them, since they aren't making money
from that.

>> As for Doug having spent a lot of time on CHDK, surely that is his
>> personal choice? People don't normally ascribe a cost to their time
>> spent pursuing a hobby.

> I guess that is why he is complaining about all the time he has wasted
> on CHDK.

Doug is free to find a camera that has the features he needs
inbuild. Finding that camera will mean spending time, possibly
a lot of time, probably to find no such beast exists. Then the
commercial non-offering will never ever be redeemed, unlike his
CHDK search, which has yielded information to be used.

-Wolfgang

Walter Banks <> wrote:

> Many parts of the CHDK that is downloaded is a
> copyright violation of Canon's IP rights. You are
> missing the ethics issues.

Sorry, what exactly was *copied* by CHDK? You know, it's COPYright, not
exclude-others-from-building-sandcastles-with-the-sand-and-bucket-they-bought-from-me-right.

And yes, it's ethical to use the things one has bought even if
the seller didn't think one would. And it's ethical to share
with others.

-Wolfgang

On Jun 9, 7:56*pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:

> CHDK is mostly Canon's unlicensed IP and that is where the issues
> start to come into it. There is original IP in CHDK that could have
> been turned into an interesting product in my opinion. *There is other
> third party code written to support Canon camera's licensed through
> Canon's SDK.

CHDK is not Canon's IP. CHDK is making use of Canon's IP which is not
reproduced or altered in any way.


DanP

Walter Banks <> wrote:

> CHDK is mostly Canon's unlicensed IP

OK, you asked for it: Provide proof.
Now.

-Wolfgang

Doug Bashford <> wrote:
>Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?;
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011, PeterN wrote:
>> It seems to me that using hacked code could void warrantys
>
>While theoretically CHDK could harm a camera,
>for example taking a picture every 2 seconds for
>months at a time, that threat is not practical.
>
>All CHDK does is pull the levers that Canon
>has kindly left accesable. It it bothered them,
>they would no longer be accessable after all
>these different processors.
>
>It sells cameras, go to Wikipedia, CHDK is
>a powershot biggy in the *lead section!*
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_PowerShot
>
>It's why I bought Canon rather than Lumix.
>CHDK is there because Canon wants it there.
>That's just simple economics.


Agree 100%.

Doug Bashford <> wrote:
>As I said above;
>I can't help but think that the pages of obsolete
>material are there for more than apathetic
>neglect, but for a feeling, or tradition, or
>some such that I can't put my finger on.
>I've suggested "sentimental value" as a possibility.


I would suggest it is a result not of apathy, but anarchy, compounded
by the fact that the first language of so many of the contributors is
not English. Couple that with a desire not to offend anyone by
removing their particular contribution, and the result is an
uncontrolled mess.

You should demand a full and complete refund.

Doug Bashford <> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011, Bruce wrote:
>> Walter Banks <> wrote:
>> >Bruce wrote:

>> If you cannot see the significant difference between (1) a
>> collaborative non-profit venture that delivers great benefits but no
>> disbenefits to anyone and (2) a commercial organisation that blatantly
>> flouts intellectual property laws to make a fast buck (or millions of
>> them) then you are beyond help. There are none so blind as those that
>> will not see.

> Exactly. But there's more concise ways of putting that.
> Simply put, not all property rights are equal.

For example, "intellectual property" isn't.

> Theft is violation of property rights.

It's really hard to steal intellectual property. You'd need to
e.g. break into an inventor's house, take *all* his papers and
plans for the invention, get all the backups from the bank and
wherever, and finally cause an amnesia in the inventor's brain
so he cannot 'just' recreate the plans and papers.

It's hard to copy non-mass produced property, though some things
(like jewlery) are easier than other things (like land).

> By definition, property rights are the right to deny
> the benefits of that property to others,
> which has potential to cost society,

a clear cost to society. And remember, all these intellectual
"property" stuff is granted on the premise that it will enrich
society as a whole, not to enrich the makers or buyers of such
rights. The idea is to let the makers (and not the buyers, and not
the grandchildren of makers or buyers!) make a living of creating.

For that arguably 20 or 30 years copyright after creation or
publication is more than enough.

> for example, if clean water was 10 cents/gallon.


>> >> As for Doug having spent a lot of time on CHDK, surely that is his
>> >> personal choice? People don't normally ascribe a cost to their time
>> >> spent pursuing a hobby.

>> >I guess that is why he is complaining about all the time he has wasted
>> >on CHDK.

>> That was Doug's choice.

> No, not in the "economic theory" sense of choice.
> As you know, that assumes perfect knowledge.

And thus is broken.

> I ended up buying the sx120 10X rather than the competing
> Lumix 12X and new sx130 12X w HDvideo based on presuming
> that CHDK was not in a shambles, based on a raves
> here and my positive experience with reputable freeware
> elsewhere. As it turned out, since the new upgraded
> sx130 got instant CHDK, I should have got that. The
> better photo qual Lumix? ...arguable. My costs were more
> than the utterly unforeseen and excessive "hobby time."

> No biggy, this time got it wrong and lost.

Next time, spend 15 minutes checking your assumptions.

-Wolfgang

Doug Bashford <> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>> Next time, spend 15 minutes checking your assumptions.

> Why do you insist on dodging responsibility
> and blame-the-victim...ANYTHING but address
> the source, address the problem?

Uh? The problem was you bought a camera *assuming* CHDK was ready
for it --- but CHDK wasn't. You were rather unhappy about that,
found that the CHDK wasn't up to your documentation standards and
wanted immediate change and action, because you paid top dollar
for your camera.

That's the source.

You venting here instead of where CHDK people might read it.

That's the problem.


I don't dodge responsibility --- CHDK isn't mine, and it was *your*
responsibility to check before you buy.

And if you shirk your responsibilities, then I feel it fair to blame
you, even if you *think* you're a victim.

| There is nothing more dangerous than someone who thinks of himself as a
| victim. Victims feel it's within their rights to **** over everyone.
| --Cynthia Heimel


> Ya know vooofie, you are in danger of appearing
> as blind and obstanant as Walter. Why aint you
> paying attention?...why ignore me?...putting words in my
> mouth? ....Same as Walter I'm guessing. You twist
> reality to your assumptions rather than vice versa,
> or even rather than pure-neutral evaluation.

Huh? Whatzzup? Channelling some insane mind?


> I wrote almost a year ago:

Hey, I'm *not* required to remember everything anyone posted a year
ago --- under a *different* *name*!

>========================begin repost:
[...]
>> My wild quess is it might be relased by Xmas!
>> Anybody else care to venture a guess?
>> That cinches it. I'm gunna buy a Canon!

>========end repost

> Why do you create lies or fault into my position?

So you make a "wild quess"[sic!] and didn't even ccheck if that
guess ever came true ...

> Why do you act like a parent garding his godlike,
> faultless child against evil accusers?

Huh?

> Isn't *THAT* the root of this problem?

No. It's *your* problem with CHDK not being what you want it to
be, and you being unwilling to help transforming it.

> ....Failure of the poo-bahs to take any responsibility?
> Finger-point and blame the casual user?....
> Failure to accept constructive criticism? etc etc and
> related?

Sorry, since I am not involved at all with CHDK, I'm completely
neutral. I just don't like your "It's not pre-chewed, it's not
pre-digested, it's still in beta and it's not ready yet for me poor
casual user who didn't bother to check". Tough luck.

> Oh no, it just happened! There is no counter to Entrophy
> Law! It's all *their* fault! We's just helpless fairies
> of goodness in an EVIL NASTY WORLD! THEM THEM THEM!!!!

Ask your head shrink, and really, I don't care if you end up with a
shrunken head in the process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrunken_head


> It seems to me that most big problems remain
> big problems because people choose the home team rather
> than side with the truth or the correct or a solution.

And that's the reason CHDK isn't what you want it to be?


> "We've always been at war with..."
> About 327,000 google results

> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22We...&safe=off&tbs=

OK, you _are_ twisting the facts to fit your world view by now.

> The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
> The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

-Wolfgang

--
I never really understood how there could be things that would drive you
insane just because you knew them until I ran into Windows.
--Peter da Silva, a.s.r.