“Open source” really isn’t the right term here, if they’re just releasing API specifications. “Open sourcing” the speakers would be releasing the source code to the software that runs on the speakers.
Like, all of Microsoft’s libraries on Windows have a publicly-documented interface. That hardly makes them open source. Just means that people can write software that make use of them.
Indeed it’s misleading wording but credit where credit is due, this is far better than turning them all into e-waste. It’s not like anyone bought these with the assumption they would have any sort of official API someday, especially after seeing how Sonos handled their similar situation…
It’s misleading wording by arse-technica, not Bose. The quoted wording from Nosebis correct and it looks like they’re doing the right thing. After originally announcing they would be dumb speakers, now they’ll continue to be useful and third party apps can continue to use them. Applaud Bose for doing the right thing
There is a Soundtouch extension to Music Assistant, which which is part of Home Assistant. Last I checked the developer is unsure how functional the wireless speakers will be after the app shutdown.
That is not a spectrum of open source. They are all open source, as in you can access the source code without restriction. These licenses just limit what you can do with the source code.
Low end: “you can see the source but can’t do anything with it” (questionable whether this counts as open source at all)
High end “do what you want, it’s literally yours” (public domain).
One can debate where the low boundary of “open source” is, or what makes one license more or less free than another, but the spectrum is the range of limitations.
“Open source” really isn’t the right term here, if they’re just releasing API specifications. “Open sourcing” the speakers would be releasing the source code to the software that runs on the speakers.
Like, all of Microsoft’s libraries on Windows have a publicly-documented interface. That hardly makes them open source. Just means that people can write software that make use of them.
Indeed it’s misleading wording but credit where credit is due, this is far better than turning them all into e-waste. It’s not like anyone bought these with the assumption they would have any sort of official API someday, especially after seeing how Sonos handled their similar situation…
It’s misleading wording by arse-technica, not Bose. The quoted wording from Nosebis correct and it looks like they’re doing the right thing. After originally announcing they would be dumb speakers, now they’ll continue to be useful and third party apps can continue to use them. Applaud Bose for doing the right thing
Direct your Boos to arse-technica
Yes, the correct term for this would be “open api”
“documented api”, nothing open about it
Idk, it probably has an open backdoor somewhere
There is a Soundtouch extension to Music Assistant, which which is part of Home Assistant. Last I checked the developer is unsure how functional the wireless speakers will be after the app shutdown.
I appreciate the distinction, but open source is always a spectrum, so I think the description is a reasonable application here.
The source code is private, how can you call that open source?
Bose innovates again by creating “open source” without source, and while keeping everything closed!
But the source code isn’t available. The source isn’t open. It’s not open-source, by definition.
The “spectrum” you refer to us about how free you are to publicly make use of the code, not whether or not you even have the code.
This situation does not fall inside that spectrum.
Is it? I’ve only ever heard “open source” to refer to the source code being released.
Maybe there’s a different term they meant to say other than “open source”
And being under a permissive license. Just making the source available is called source-available.
Permissive license means MIT or Apache2. The GPL or AGPL are also open source but copyleft licenses.
One could make that argument, but not in this case. Documenting an API has nothing to do with the open source status of the product.
It most definitely is not.
It is a spectrum (MIT vs GPL vs APL for example) but this is outside that spectrum.
That is not a spectrum of open source. They are all open source, as in you can access the source code without restriction. These licenses just limit what you can do with the source code.
Well, yeah. That’s what the spectrum is.
Low end: “you can see the source but can’t do anything with it” (questionable whether this counts as open source at all)
High end “do what you want, it’s literally yours” (public domain).
One can debate where the low boundary of “open source” is, or what makes one license more or less free than another, but the spectrum is the range of limitations.
Even if it were this would be like saying neon green is greyscale
You’re shitting out of your mouth, son.