Jim Klimov
2021-Oct-20 19:04 UTC
[Nut-upsdev] [HCL]<Manufacturer>Powercom<Device>all ups<driver>usbhid-ups
Thanks Ted, that echoes my thoughts: any HW supported by NUT at some point and with a population of units physically alive, whether marketed or supported by original vendors or not, should better be documented. So if the old docs are in some way better than new one, even if explaining quirks not relevant and not documented for same-named models or firmware sold today, I believe such docs should remain available (maybe marked as old stuff, but ready for revision). After all, currently shipped drivers probably correspond to that spec?.. @Dinow: how strict is the business/etc. requirement to make that older info truly unavailable? Can we keep it visible but maybe marked deprecated? Jim On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 12:05 Ted Mittelstaedt via Nut-upsdev < nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote:> > Thanks, Dinow, > > > I'm not a NUT admin but you posted this to a public mailing list so I'm > going to just send a response to that list since it's a public posting. > > > The current documentation you sent is much sparser than the older docs. > So I think the older docs are going to still be valuable for just that > reason alone, as an addition to the newer current documentation. I do not > know what the admins are going to do but I would hope they merely mark the > old documents as "Old" and add this to them. > > > Unlike commercial software, open source software projects usually do not > have the luxury of removing support for older hardware that is no longer in > production from the manufacturer. > > > As a NUT user I cannot thank you enough for supporting open source > software projects like NUT. > > > Ted > > > > On 10/19/2021 7:28 PM, dinow via Nut-upsdev wrote: > > > > Good Day NUT administrators > > > > AA. My name is Dinow and the engineer of *Powercom* corporation > > > > BB. Could you help us to : > > > > B1. *Remove* the current list from Powercom >> > https://networkupstools.org/ups-protocols.html: > > - USB information for BNT series > - USB information for IMPERIAL series > - USB information for SKP series > - USB information for WOW series > > B2. *Add* a item and its document > > - USB information for *all* Powercom's UPS > - Add attached *PDF* as its document > > CC. Big Thanks for your help > > > > > > If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to inform us > > Sincerely yours truly, Oct. 20th > > Dinow Hsieh > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nut-upsdev mailing listNut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.nethttps://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev > > _______________________________________________ > Nut-upsdev mailing list > Nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20211020/048c0ecc/attachment.htm>
dinow
2021-Oct-21 02:34 UTC
[Nut-upsdev] Re(2): [HCL]<Manufacturer>Powercom<Device>all ups<driver>usbhid-ups
Good Day Ted & Jim
AA. Yes
==> Thanks your corrections and we hope nut to keep the old documents
==> Is it okay to change the representation as below Powercom list from
https://networkupstools.org/ups-protocols.html
USB information for old BNT series
USB information for old IMPERIAL series
USB information for old SKP series
USB information for old WOW series
USB information for All Powercom UPS series
(https://www.upspowercom.com/ftp/PCM-USB-Protocol.pdf)
BB. Big thanks for all your professional corrections and assistance
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to inform us
Sincerely yours truly, Oct. 21th
Dinow Hsieh
----- Original Message -----
From: nut-upsdev
To: Ted Mittelstaedt
Date: 2021/10/21 (??)
Subject: Re: [Nut-upsdev] [HCL]Powercomall upsusbhid-ups
Thanks Ted,
that echoes my thoughts: any HW supported by NUT at some point and with a
population of units physically alive, whether marketed or supported by original
vendors or not, should better be documented.
So if the old docs are in some way better than new one, even if explaining
quirks not relevant and not documented for same-named models or firmware sold
today, I believe such docs should remain available (maybe marked as old stuff,
but ready for revision). After all, currently shipped drivers probably
correspond to that spec?..
@Dinow: how strict is the business/etc. requirement to make that older info
truly unavailable? Can we keep it visible but maybe marked deprecated?
Jim
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 12:05 Ted Mittelstaedt via Nut-upsdev <nut-upsdev at
alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote:
Thanks, Dinow,
I'm not a NUT admin but you posted this to a public mailing list so I'm
going to just send a response to that list since it's a public posting.
The current documentation you sent is much sparser than the older docs. So I
think the older docs are going to still be valuable for just that reason alone,
as an addition to the newer current documentation. I do not know what the
admins are going to do but I would hope they merely mark the old documents as
"Old" and add this to them.
Unlike commercial software, open source software projects usually do not have
the luxury of removing support for older hardware that is no longer in
production from the manufacturer.
As a NUT user I cannot thank you enough for supporting open source software
projects like NUT.
Ted
On 10/19/2021 7:28 PM, dinow via Nut-upsdev wrote:
Good Day NUT administrators
AA. My name is Dinow and the engineer of Powercom corporation
BB. Could you help us to :
B1. Remove the current list from Powercom >>
https://networkupstools.org/ups-protocols.html:
USB information for BNT series
USB information for IMPERIAL series
USB information for SKP series
USB information for WOW series
B2. Add a item and its document
USB information for all Powercom's UPS
Add attached PDF as its document
CC. Big Thanks for your help
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to inform us
Sincerely yours truly, Oct. 20th
Dinow Hsieh
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
Nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
Nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
The information in this e-mail may be confidential; it is intended for use
solely by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof. Disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail by persons other
than the intended recipient may violate applicable laws and if you have received
this e-mail in error, please delete the original message and notify us by
collect call immediately. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20211021/803a5bcc/attachment-0001.htm>
Ted Mittelstaedt
2021-Oct-21 15:37 UTC
[Nut-upsdev] [HCL]<Manufacturer>Powercom<Device>all ups<driver>usbhid-ups
Hi Jim, As a published author I'm going to jump in here and make a correction you might think it small but it's extremely important. Under WIPO and copyright law setout therein, facts ARE NOT copyrightable.? Powercom cannot dictate terms to us or to anyone on how the the documentation they sent to us is used.? Only expressions are copyrightable. I realize it may be hairsplitting to you.? Let me illustrate: The sentence: "The AC Adapter runs off 60Hz power" is not copyrightable.? However, the sentence: We recommend that the AC adapter be used on a power strip with surge suppression" is copyrightable because it's an expression. In short, Powercom has no legal ability to exercise copyright control because of any business requirement to make information available - in short, they may want the old docs removed (so as to enhance sales of new devices or any other reason) however they have no legal authority to demand this. Do not give them a legal power to do this by asking whether or not we can keep the old docs up.? Under copyright law they do not have this power. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be nice, they asked us to remove the old docs, and while they have no legal authority to make that request we can acknowledge that they have expressed that desire and try to honor it as much as is reasonable by prominently marking the old docs as obsolete.? I'll assume their motivation to take the old docs down is to prevent confusion among developers when there is a conflict between the old doc and the new doc.? I'm just trying to explain we can't do that since we have to still support the old gear, but we can eliminate that possible confusion by being explicit on what is what. Ted On 10/20/2021 12:04 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:> Thanks Ted, > > ? that echoes my thoughts: any HW supported by NUT at some point and > with a population of units physically alive, whether marketed or > supported by original vendors or not, should better be documented. > > ? So if the old docs are in some way better than new one, even if > explaining quirks not relevant and not documented for same-named > models or firmware sold today, I believe such docs should remain > available (maybe marked as old stuff, but ready for revision). After > all, currently shipped drivers probably correspond to that spec?.. > > @Dinow: how strict is the business/etc. requirement to make that older > info truly unavailable? Can we keep it visible but maybe marked > deprecated? > > Jim > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 12:05 Ted Mittelstaedt via Nut-upsdev > <nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net> wrote: > > > Thanks, Dinow, > > > I'm not a NUT admin but you posted this to a public mailing list > so I'm going to just send a response to that list since it's a > public posting. > > > The current documentation you sent is much sparser than the older > docs.? So I think the older docs are going to still be valuable > for just that reason alone, as an addition to the newer current > documentation.? I do not know what the admins are going to do but > I would hope they merely mark the old documents as "Old" and add > this to them. > > > Unlike commercial software, open source software projects usually > do not have the luxury of removing support for older hardware that > is no longer in production from the manufacturer. > > > As a NUT user I cannot thank you enough for supporting open source > software projects like NUT. > > > Ted > > > > On 10/19/2021 7:28 PM, dinow via Nut-upsdev wrote: >> >> Good Day NUT administrators >> >> AA.?My name is Dinow and the engineer of *Powercom* corporation >> >> BB.?Could you help?us to : >> >> ????B1. *Remove* the current list from Powercom? >> >> https://networkupstools.org/ups-protocols.html >> <https://networkupstools.org/ups-protocols.html>: >> >> * USB information for BNT series >> * USB information for IMPERIAL series >> * USB information for SKP series >> * USB information for WOW series >> >> ????B2. *Add* a item and its document >> >> * USB information for *all* Powercom's UPS >> * Add attached *PDF* as its document >> >> CC. Big Thanks for your help >> >> If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to inform us >> >> Sincerely yours truly, Oct. 20th >> >> Dinow Hsieh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nut-upsdev mailing list >> Nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net >> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev > _______________________________________________ > Nut-upsdev mailing list > Nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20211021/73cb37a3/attachment.htm>