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…
Comment on Bose open-sources its SoundTouch home theater smart speakers ahead of end-of-life
tal@lemmy.today 1 month ago
“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.
COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
AA5B@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I appreciate the distinction, but open source is always a spectrum, so I think the description is a reasonable application here.
Shadow@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
The source code is private, how can you call that open source?
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Bose innovates again by creating open source without source and while keeping everything closed!
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 month ago
but open source is always a 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”
frongt@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
And being under a permissive license. Just making the source available is called source-available.
exu@feditown.com 1 month ago
Permissive license means MIT or Apache2. The GPL or AGPL are also open source but copyleft licenses.
forrgott@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
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.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 month ago
You’re shitting out of your mouth, son.
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
open source is always a spectrum It most definitely is not.
Hawke@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It is a spectrum (MIT vs GPL vs APL for example) but this is outside that spectrum.
racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
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.
pogmommy@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Even if it were this would be like saying neon green is greyscale
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes, the correct term for this would be “open api”
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
“documented api”
naught101@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Idk, it probably has an open backdoor somewhere
bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
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.