Why not Re-Release Rule Machine?

SmartApps & Automations
1

So, Bruce pulled his Rule Machine app from github.

He asked that we not rerelease it.

People that missed out on it have asked for it, but (as far as I can tell) no one has provided it.

The copy I still have in my Smartthings IDE (and on my computer) says it was released under Apache 2.0 license.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

That license includes this clause:

  1. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

and this:

  1. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:

You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
If the Work includes a “NOTICE” text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

So, the question is, what keeps someone (me for example) from re-releasing this smart app? I mean, heck, I could take his code asis and sell it for a profit and the license doesn’t prevent that.

So, why hasn’t anyone re-released rule machine?

There is clearly a demand for it.

Bruce was clearly upset enough to pull it, but does that really matter to the people who want to use the app despite the issues people had with it?

ST has an issue with the way it treats community contributors. Bruce stated that he could not in good conscience allow people to use it because it could cause issues. Shouldn’t that be OUR decision, not his?

He could have just walked away and said he wasn’t going to support it anymore, rather than taking his ball and going home.

Now that the temper tantrum is over. Can we move on with things and allow people to make an informed decision on their own on whether they want to use it or not? (I never stopped using it, and it has been working fine for me since before he pulled it.)

What is stopping me from re-releasing his app asis with no support?

Todd

2 Likes
2

The reason no one is re-releasing it is based on his wishes once he changed the license.
His intent was to have the app not be re-distributed, so even though people have versions that can be, they are not out of respect for the developer and his intent.

2 Likes
3

And from various posts it seems people have started running into problems with RM rules not firing properly. Currently, there is a community-based RM equivalent being made by one of our forum members which seem to be more capable.

Also past experience has taught me rereleasing unsupported software just leads people (especially newcomers to the platform) in circles when inevitably things start to fail.

5 Likes
4

Something will replace RM soon enough. Soon enough that it’s not worth releasing old, buggy software. And Smart Rules is available now.

1 Like
5

Don’t get me started on Smart Rules…

2 Likes
6

Still no android love…

4 Likes
7

I think, reason is not “dev intent” or “respect” bla bla .
Simply nobody willing to maintain and continue develop it.
Bruce pulled it because it didn’t work as he want to, because he can’t control platform fluctuations.
ST is now successfully stabilizing platform for their own apps, one day there will be time to re-release complex app like Rules Machine, now it will be not reliable.

8

It’s working fine for me.

9

No need for a long discussion on this.

You are allowed to do with that file, and only that file which the Apache 2.0 license is attached to, whatever you want, including distribution.

DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice, just an observation. I recommend you obtain a qualified professional advisor.

1 Like
10

Grand-pappy always said when things die they become the fertilizer for new and better crops.

8 Likes
11

What was old and buggy about @bravenel Rule Machine?
It amazes me the disrespect and self-entitlement that some people feel they deserve.
How many hundreds if not thousands of hours do you think Bruce put into developing the RM? Luckily he was generous enough to share with the public.

His software was rather brilliantly coded, and the only reason a replacement will ever exist is because of Rule Machine laying the foundation, the walls, and the roof. All that is left is someone to repaint it and slap their name on it.

All I could say is if he ever thought about bringing it back I doubt he will now with all of the crap everyone talks about his decision to pull it.

11 Likes
12

Sorry I think I wasn’t clear. The Apache versions of RM are old and contain bugs that are fixed in later versions. I wouldn’t recommend installing, distributing, or supporting it as such.

You can accuse me of many things, but disrespecting our community developers isn’t one of 'em!

4 Likes
13

my bad… i completely took that out of context. Open mouth insert foot

1 Like
14

There was only about 3 weeks and half a dozen small changes between the last Apache 2.0 licensed version and the final one before it was pulled. Those final changes were all small bug fixes. So while your statement is true, the delta between the two is small.

15

Here is the discussion on a new rules engine…

1 Like
16

Right…but no one is allowed to “copy” these changes from the source code. They’d have to be redeveloped.

For those who think it isn’t “supportive” to consider using the Apache 2.0 Rule Machine as a baseline for a new rule SmartApp, you’re welcome to do as you wish and not copy or use it, but the fundamental purpose of Apache 2.0 is to ensure the restriction free distribution of code for both educational, constructive, survival and derivative purposes. It cannot be revoked.

It’s meant to benefit the developer by encouraging the spread of his/her ideas and work, and benefits the users for the reasons above.

17

I have the latest version of the code. I updated literally right before it was pulled. I’ve pushed that app in some crazy ways to do some amazing things.

I will NOT release the copy I have to anyone. For these reasons

  1. Respect for the code. The code of the programmer. The code of free trade. The code.
  2. I don’t give a damn about the license. Sue me. I don’t care… but you still won’t get a copy.
  3. and this is the big one… it’s a dying beast. It’s archaic. It’s old. It’s unsupported. And as [quote=“N8XD, post:10, topic:47666, full:true”]
    Grand-pappy always said when things die they become the fertilizer for new and better crops.
    [/quote]

Rule Machine was/is an amazing piece of art on this platform. It’s allowed for some amazing automations. But, Bruce is gone. He left behind his legacy. His reasons for leaving do not matter. What’s done is done. I hold nothing against him or his reasons.

But, from the foundation that was formed by Bruce and his work there will be something better. A foundation is what it is. It is first. It is solid. It is the base.

The new app has amazing potential. It is Rule Machine, but it is the evolution of Rule Machine.

It will be the X-men of our platform.

But really, to stay on point. Rule Machine will die. The forward progress of the platform will always destroy anything that is as complex as RM. I’ve begun to have major problems, not caused by the platform, but by the evolving platform leaving RM behind.

Eventually, RM will be gone. And as was said, it is dead, and it just doesn’t know it yet.

7 Likes
18

Apache 2.0 doesn’t obligate you to distribute the code nor demand a copy of it. It only obligates you to not sue the developer or distributors.

Apache 2.0, however, obligates the developer to not demand that particular file not be copied, modified, or distributed. It’s like getting the worms back into the can. Legally it cannot be done, and I think it is actually unethical to attempt to revoke an Apache 2.0 license… You can ask the worms all you want, but let them be free!

But, you’re quite correct – this discussion is becoming more and more irrelevant as time passes.

3 Likes
19

I don’t think there’s anyone who wants an android version more than @obycode right now. There’s clearly demand so he’s gotta be leaving money on the table.

20

Yeah right, if it were really that easy I would done it :grin:
but thankfully there are those much more gifted

1 Like