Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?

Walter Banks wrote:

Get involved if you want the results you seek.

A very good point.

I have been
writing commercial software for a very long time. It takes
work and dedication.

That's basically true for every non-trivial software.

Free and open source software is
for the most part is expensive for what it provides.

Interesting.
I concede that some commercial software (which can be FOSS) has
well thought out GUIs and good manuals, quick and knowledgeable
support and all that.

I concede that with a lot of FOSS you'll get manuals that aren't
always 100% up to date and too often manuals and GUIs and CLIs are
written with other developers in mind. (I'll give you the example
of 'par', a very powerful, but also very arcane text formatter ---
it's manual is centered around what each switch does internally,
when it should be centered around use cases or the effect. So it's
much trial and error. No, I don't know how to distangle that net.
And yes, the author knows how the documentation (and the program
design) is lacking by now.)

On the other hand, maintained FOSS software is fixed much faster,
especially when it comes to security bugs, and allows you to
bug-hunt[0], patch, recompile[1] yourself, should you feel like it.
Also, you routinely have support via email and/or IRC from the
developers themselves --- the guys and gals who know exactly what
is happening where --- not via some lackluster outsourced first
level support. And third parties can write patches for at least
some problems.

I also think that lots of free software would not have survived
as commercial software (too small market, too much work in
advertizing, marketing, selling), and often would not have been
written because there would have not been a sensible business case
for the limited projects often first envisioned by the single
or few developers initially working on the project. Think of
what the project was foir what we now know as the linux kernel
and how much money it would have cost to develop it commercially
(if you knew at the beginning what the target was).

Take you for example, a camera that provides the features
you seek through CHDK would be less expensive to simply
buy if your time is worth anything.

It would be less expensive for Canon, too, since most the
heavy lifting is already done --- and Canon, having access to
the source code, could implement things faster, clearer and
better.

However, AFAIK, there *is* no camera that comes even close to
the features CHDK offers.

It would be backed by
manufacturers support and would be documented and
function as advertised.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is not always given with commercial offerings.[2] :-)
Especially with BETA software, like the CHDK for the OP's
camera.

Your rants on CHDK translate into something for nothing
with support. Disregarding for a moment the moral issues
of reverse engineering a commercial product,

I don't see any, sorry.
With reverse engineering and clean room design reimplementation
of the BIOS we got the IBM clones everyone is using today,
for example. Legally.

a lot more
could be accomplished by working with the camera
manufacturers to add special functionality.

You assume willing camera manufacturers.
If they were willing, they'd at least give the specs CHDK must
reverse engineer for each camera to them --- after all, Canon
gets exta features for free and doesn't even have to support them
--- and gains at least some buyers because of CHDK.

The observed behaviour of camera manufacturers is that they are
not in the least positive towards CHDK (though not hostile enough
to make CHDK completely impossible), nor do they seem inclined to
add features like motion detection, scripting et al to their new
cameras.

The astronomy
community saw these advantages when they partnered
with Canon for example.

How many 20Da's were made? Where were they distributed?
When was this?

-Wolfgang

[0] I'm currently investigating a segfault with mythtv (frontend)
that happens on debian-testing, but not on debian-stable.
I couldn't even begin to do that without open source.

[1] e.g. try a different library version than the executable was
linked against, optimize for your CPU, etc. Not something
the average user often needs, but certainly of interest to
the power user.

[2] Our analog-signal TV harddisk recorder has the tendency to stop
receiving when you switch channels and with a recording time
(advertized) of up to 400 hours, has only *8* slots for timer
recordings. Yes, you can do weekly repeats and Mo-Fr repeats
--- but you cannot give a name to the recordings before they
are recorded and naming recordings is a major PITA due to the
interface (switch through the whole alphabet letter by letter,
digit by digit, special char by special char (you can switch
between upper and lower case though) --- and don't press the
buttons on the remote control too fast. Never heard of an
on-screen keyboard, have they?) No chance for me to fix that
issue, even if I had all the time in the world.

Bruce wrote:

Walter Banks wrote:
Get involved if you want the results you seek. I have been
writing commercial software for a very long time. It takes
work and dedication. Free and open source software is
for the most part is expensive for what it provides.

If it is free, how can it be "expensive"?

Doug Bashford has detailed his cost/time benefit to using CHDK,
He has spent real time and paid utility costs for internet and is
yet to receive any benefit. That is very expensive.


Take you for example, a camera that provides the features
you seek through CHDK would be less expensive to simply
buy if your time is worth anything. It would be backed by
manufacturers support and would be documented and
function as advertised.

Your rants on CHDK translate into something for nothing
with support. Disregarding for a moment the moral issues
of reverse engineering a commercial product, a lot more
could be accomplished by working with the camera
manufacturers to add special functionality. The astronomy
community saw these advantages when they partnered
with Canon for example.

You have comprehensively missed the point.

I don't think so.

CHDK only works at all
because Canon already provided all the features CHDK offers, but chose
to disable some or all of them. All CHDK does is unlock features that
are already there.

Actually that is not completely true.

So there is no "moral issue" at all, which is why Canon has raised no
major objections to CHDK.

Reverse engineering and republishing has plenty of moral and ethical
issues.

Saying that Canon has not yelled loud enough is hardly justification.

w..

Bruce wrote:


Clearly you have something of a jaundiced view of CHDK because of your
involvement in writing other, presumably unrelated software. But
Canon not only hasn't yelled loudly. Effectively, Canon seems not to
have yelled at all.

My view of CHDK is clear. CHDK actually did have some interesting
original IP with the addition of some programmable sequence features.
I applaud them for that. I compare that project with the co-operation
that Canon has had with the astronomy community. CHDK has
reverse engineered Canon's software and left the changes looking
like an amateur hack


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.

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 trying to install CHDK and complains of noise in modified
feature high ISO images. I don't think it is a win for them.

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.

w..

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

Except Canon.

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.

The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

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


w..

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

Except Canon.

On the contrary, Canon gets the benefits of (1) increased feature sets
and therefore (2) the likelihood of increased sales without spending a
penny on development. Win/win.

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.

The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

See above. There is no fiscal harm whatsoever to Canon. In practice,
quite the opposite.

How does that make it ethically correct?

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

Clearly Canon is also missing those issues, otherwise Canon would have
sued the ass of the CHDK developers a long time ago. Canon's
continuing indifference to CHDK should be seen a tacit approval of
what the CHDK developers are doing. It strongly suggests that CHDK is
to Canon's benefit.

That is quite a jump. Copyright violation to tacit approval to
corporate policy. I grew up in the 60's I want some of what you
have been smoking.

Please reply to my previous question which was as follows (your
statement to which I responded is re-quoted to give context):

Canon gets to support all the people who screw up the loader in
the camera trying to install CHDK and complaits of noise in modified
feature high ISO images. I don't think it is a win for them.

That's something of a mystery. Perhaps you could explain how many
people are thus affected, and how they are affected?

(It would be a pity if this remained a mystery due to your apparent
reluctance to reply. After all, you made a serious allegation.)

I stand by my comment. It is a nasty problem for Canon in order to
protect their reputation they are put in a position of supporting or
defending
against customers who are using a hacked product.

w..

On 6/9/2011 6:46 AM, Walter Banks wrote:


Bruce wrote:

Walter 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

Except Canon.

On the contrary, Canon gets the benefits of (1) increased feature sets
and therefore (2) the likelihood of increased sales without spending a
penny on development. Win/win.

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.

The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

See above. There is no fiscal harm whatsoever to Canon. In practice,
quite the opposite.

How does that make it ethically correct?

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

Clearly Canon is also missing those issues, otherwise Canon would have
sued the ass of the CHDK developers a long time ago. Canon's
continuing indifference to CHDK should be seen a tacit approval of
what the CHDK developers are doing. It strongly suggests that CHDK is
to Canon's benefit.

That is quite a jump. Copyright violation to tacit approval to
corporate policy. I grew up in the 60's I want some of what you
have been smoking.

Please reply to my previous question which was as follows (your
statement to which I responded is re-quoted to give context):

Canon gets to support all the people who screw up the loader in
the camera trying to install CHDK and complaits of noise in modified
feature high ISO images. I don't think it is a win for them.

That's something of a mystery. Perhaps you could explain how many
people are thus affected, and how they are affected?

(It would be a pity if this remained a mystery due to your apparent
reluctance to reply. After all, you made a serious allegation.)

I stand by my comment. It is a nasty problem for Canon in order to
protect their reputation they are put in a position of supporting or
defending
against customers who are using a hacked product.


You both are missing an even more subtle conundrum. Under IP law if
Canon does not defend its IP rights, it looses them. If Canon made a
business decision to let the undefended rights quietly go into the
public domain, I am not privy to that information.

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:

You both are missing an even more subtle conundrum. Under IP law if
Canon does not defend its IP rights, it looses them. If Canon made a
business decision to let the undefended rights quietly go into the
public domain, I am not privy to that information.

Canon has defended their IP rights for their products. They have also
demonstrated respect for others IP rights. They are not obliged
to fend off everyone to retain those rights. The original CHDK hack
was done in Russia. Canon has a well supported SDK for developers
and are clear about what information is in the public domain.

w..

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

Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited

Bruce wrote:

How does that make it ethically correct?

Who cares about it being "ethically correct" apart from you?

You just defined you.

Canon self-evidently doesn't care, so why should you or I care?

canon ip lawsuit gets 1.7M hits

On 6/9/2011 9:27 AM, Walter Banks wrote:


PeterN wrote:

You both are missing an even more subtle conundrum. Under IP law if
Canon does not defend its IP rights, it looses them. If Canon made a
business decision to let the undefended rights quietly go into the
public domain, I am not privy to that information.

Canon has defended their IP rights for their products. They have also
demonstrated respect for others IP rights. They are not obliged
to fend off everyone to retain those rights. The original CHDK hack
was done in Russia. Canon has a well supported SDK for developers
and are clear about what information is in the public domain.


As well they should.
I was talking about only the IP rights that may have been violated using
CHDK.
Since I am not a Canon user I do not follow the detail.

--
Peter