Password Protection

saqmaster · Post by **saqmaster** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:02 am

I ask a simple question and everyone gets all goody-two-shoes on me. What you maybe don't realise that, due to the popularity of Megasquirt, there are a lot of people out there that want to use Megasquirt but do not want to map it themselves. They approach professional tuners and ask for the job to be done. In reality, with professional aftermarket ECU's, it is quite common for tuners to lock the ECU down to a) stop tampering and b) stop theft of calibrations.

I am all for the open-ness of Megasquirt. However, why should you expect a.n.other professional tuner to be just as open about the work he/she does, just because their work is being applied to a Megasquirt ECU?

I think this attitude is a little restrictive..

Anyway, as I said, I just asked a simple question. I have my answer. Thankyou for your time.

Mk1rocco · Post by **Mk1rocco** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:12 am

saqmaster wrote:
That's all very well and good. When you purchase a copy of Windows, do you consider that your intellectual property?

That's comparing apples and oranges. The relationship between the tuner and his customer is more analogous to the relationship Microsoft has with any one of it's many sub-contractors, they do the development but Microsoft retains the copyright. By your logic, the software engineers that produce the maps for the lastest Ford product should be receiving royalities for each unit sold and if Ford wanted to modify them, they would be required to use the same engineers.

saqmaster · Post by **saqmaster** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:13 am

Mk1rocco wrote:
saqmaster wrote:
That's all very well and good. When you purchase a copy of Windows, do you consider that your intellectual property?
That's comparing apples and oranges. The relationship between the tuner and his customer is more analogous to the relationship Microsoft has with any one of it's many sub-contractors, they do the development but Microsoft retains the copyright. By your logic, the software engineers that produce the maps for the lastest Ford product should be receiving royalities for each unit sold and if Ford wanted to modify them, they would be required to use the same engineers.

Ford map their own ECU's. Even the Volvo ones.

Mk1rocco · Post by **Mk1rocco** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:32 am

Okay Ford may have been a poor example but there are plenty of other valid examples. The fact is you are, in essense, a sub-contractor providing a service and you have no right to restrict what a customer does with your work unless you've made a prior agreement to that effect.

Bill Shurvinton · Post by **Bill Shurvinton** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:40 am

saqmaster wrote:
Bill Shurvinton wrote:It is open source and to be brutally honest, Bruce, Al, Lance, Eric, James, Phil and others too numerous to mention have done a heck of a lot more getting the system to where it is today than you have mapping an engine. And in most cases no money has changed hands. So really you ought to be grateful for having been paid to do the last 2%
Every time you reply to one of my posts you show how ignorant you are. Please refrain from doing so in future.

Ooh gauntlet. Let me give you some friendly advice. Don't piss me off. Calling me ignorant is a good way of doing that. Now you can apologise or you can get on my bad side. Your choice.

ptegler · Post by **ptegler** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:49 am

Correct. To start with... if you prog'ed a ms unit for a customer...you did it using code and software that YOU did not develop from scratch. So open source or not, you still own the original intellectual rights.

Besides... the CUSTOMER owns it. It was HIS unit, HIS embedded code and etc that YOU simply modified. The proper analogy would be closer to... noone else being able to paint a car after you did as it's modifying your work.

Paul Tegler
ptegler@cablespeed.com (ptegler@cablespeed.com)
www.teglerizer.com

Posted by email.

ptegler · Post by **ptegler** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:49 am

Ford?? You mean Holden! (does the mapping)

Paul Tegler
ptegler@cablespeed.com (ptegler@cablespeed.com)
www.teglerizer.com

Posted by email.

Bernard Fife · Post by **Bernard Fife** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:08 am

Calling me ignorant is a good way of doing that. Now you can apologise or you can get on my bad side. Your choice.

Bill,

Actually, saqmaster can't apologize, at least not until he/she reads the rules and agree to follow them.

Calling other users 'ignorant' is a clear violation of our forums rules, and grounds for immediate suspension of posting privileges. This has been done for saqmaster, and that user will need to contact me and agree to read and follow the rules to be reinstated.

At that point, I would expect an apology to you and the rest of the forum forthwith, as a condition of reinstatement.

Lance.

Avinitlarge · Post by **Avinitlarge** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:49 pm

Well done that man, Thought it was a bit out of order to be honest, Its a community to help other people, He seemed a tad selfish, I could see his point but it was out of order, As for calling bill ignorant, That was well out of order, I found bill to be a big help in the past when I bought my MS from him.

ptegler · Post by **ptegler** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:08 pm

oops.... that should have read.... So open source or not, you still DO NOT own the original intellectual rights.

Paul Tegler
ptegler@cablespeed.com (ptegler@cablespeed.com)
www.teglerizer.com

Posted by email.