$20 to unlock the API killed it for me. If it has a built in way yo lock it down, it's not an open platform and is a great way for bugs to brick a device.
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
116 points (94.6% liked)
Open Source
41087 readers
97 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Charging a one time fee for the API seems like a decent way to ensure continued operation.
But if you don't like it, you can run your own server
Problem for me is that there is some kind of restriction on accessing the device's API at all and you pay extra for the key that will get created when you unlock it. This may mean that some kind of lock is in place on the device that has to have a key for it created. Even if they give you a key, what happens if an update removes that key's validity, even unintentionally. I've had this happen with products in the past. A bug will restrict access to things or worst case, will totally brick the device because the lock is stuck in place.
Not saying this device has that problem, but the concept of a lock existing means it could intentionally for profit, maliciously by hacking, or unintentionally end up locked later, so I'm just against the concept in the first place. It's a potential point of failure for no good reason but profit on a device that is supposed to be open. I'd happily accept if they changed a little extra for a device that had no lock at all. Just I don't want a device with a lock on it.
Also, I'm not sure how having my own server helps here, in fact that's my plan in the first place as I want to get the thing to interface with my own internal systems. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the implementation, but my understanding from the very brief information available is that you get on your device, connect to their server to pay a fee, and then a key is created for you and then you can access the endpoints running on the device either through the server or directly with REST calls. The alternative is to teardown the device and build your own custom firmware that uses different authentication mechanisms. I don't really have the interest to mod the firmware and then have to maintain a fork for getting official updates. I just want to be able to be able to interface any servers I have with the device as I choose.
Checked the site quickly and didn't find the information, but judging by the top-level comment, they don't charge you if you want to use their cloud service, but if you want to "unlock" the ability to use someone else's.
This is a really bad way to look at an Open Source project. Want an API for free? Host your own, they have a server you can run. They are providing that service as a hosted platform, that they pay for, so you don't get that part for free. That's not what FOSS is.
Two issues I have:
- There is a license on what you can install on the device. Open means no licenses on owned things, regardless of how open that license is initially, it can be changed.
- The server it connects to is not configurable. You have to build your own firmware and maintain it and that goes back to the first point in case they decide to change the license.
-
You can compile whatever you want into the firmware and load it on the device.
-
The server is configurable, by loading new firmware. It's just like flashing an ESP32, which you could also build your own TRMNL out of.
In other words, those are not real issues.
But i have no desire to compile and maintain a fork of software just to set a URL and auth token. And again, this is a license to modify the firmware, so they could at some point decide to revoke the license to modify the firmware or stop publishing security updates on their git repo to allow for merging into the fork I have to maintain. Probably won't if they are reputable and don't get acquired, but still a risk. It's just not worth it for me for any open product I purchase.
You should probably stop complaining about FOSS if you don't understand how it works.
i have no desire to
So? Then don't, but don't claim the $20 is your issue. Firmware is easy, you just don't want to learn it.
they could at some point decide to revoke the license
Nope. They need approval from all contributors to change, and even if they got that, anyone could fork from the time of the current license. This is how FOSS works. Lemmy itself could do the same thing.
It's just not worth it for me for any open product I purchase.
What open products are you purchasing that you think don't follow this pattern?
I said from the beginning it's a deal breaker for me. You're the one trying to convince me it's not the issue I think it is.
And I'm not talking about the license to modify the firmware software itself. I'm talking about the EULA of the device itself. Pretty much any device you own that has any kind of software on it is not owned by you outright to modify as you wish. This website doesn't show the agreement, but if it has a paid feature to unlock, it has to have one somewhere.
Pretty standard stuff.
That's for use of the website. Not the device.
That's because that's all they have terms for. This is a company who's FAQ shows you how to take the device apart and how to flash the firmware. It's as open as it gets.
Damn. I would really love one of these, to show off books, show my daily tasks, etc. Really unfortunate its locked down.
Most apps stated in their website if not all are closed source
Their guide still implies that you need to pay a fee to unlock an API key before you can flash a new firmware.
How they plan to enforce that fee to unlock an API key when the firmware is supposedly open source I don't know. When I looked over the source code it looked like it was being written to a log.
The esp32 supports efuses that can be used to require a signed binary to boot. So they could lock their hardware to only work with their binary. Source code wouldn't matter.
Of course if the source is open you can buy and put together your own hardware and then put their code on it.
I'm not advocating what they're doing. Rent seeking is rent seeking even if they need to recoup development costs. I'd rather pay for open hardware and software with no monthly fee.
Honestly, between this and not all the modules being open source I would personally avoid it, seen too many projects openbait and then go "open core".
Looks really neat. I have an old Kindle e-ink screen I scavenged, but I have no clue how to actually interface with it. Being able to hack around with one would be nice.
I think this is designed for that https://github.com/vroland/epdiy
Hey, thanks! That's really cool. I've never gotten a PCB made, but maybe this is a good first time to try it
When does this ship to India?
There's paperd.ink introduced some years back at IndiaFOSS
Thanks for sharing.
Probably never.
As far as I can see in the firmware code it has Arduino under the hood. And the firmware itself doesn't look that complicated. If I'm ever buying one I'd definitely rewriting the api client to my liking:)
Thats something I could be interested in...
Nice!