# BACnet communication protocol

K

C

C

#### Curt Wuollet

Thanks Ken I think I'll explain what we are doing and request that they donate a copy for review. IF they are pure of heart, it should be in their interest to do so if we respect copyright. Regards cww _______________________________________________ LinuxPLC mailing list [email protected] http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc

K

#### Ken Irving

It's worth a try, perhaps, (and maybe a good test) but there seems to be a fair amount of animosity toward the idea of anything free and open. I posed a question on the BACnet list the other day (archives available somewhere), but probably got off on the wrong foot. I made a presumption that the fact that there's a charge for the specification means it would not be possible to support in an open forum. Only those who had paid their \$118 could see what is in the spec, and so comment on the code written to it. There are no restrictions on who can buy it, and the goal is for a common protocol. It is aimed at "building automation" systems, but, as others have noted, that doesn't necessarily mean it might not be applicable to generalized automation. There was some discussion of an open, even GPL-licensed, implementation of the protocol, but I think that turned out to be a testing suite intended for checking implementations for compliance. I'm not sure that BACnet is actually applicable to the needs of the LinuxPLC, but it seems a shame to ignore all the work that others have put into this and other efforts. I think there is a need for a protocol that is open, but whether that's OIC, ACPLT, BACnet, etc., I certainly don't know. I'd be willing to attempt to summarize how BACnet is laid out, and could probably find some links to information (though those are often glowing reports and hypeful predictions). Ken