C
From a totally objective viewpoint, I would cautiously agree. The only remaining obstacles for Modbus are the the proprietary nature of Modbus+ and the fact that the licensing doesn't clearly allow what a lot of folks are already doing. Modicon retains the right to shut down Modbus.org and others who implement the protos without a formal agreement. I doubt that it would be in their interest to do so as the genie has been out of the bottle for a long time. Why not then, recognize the reality and either change or disclaim the licensing or better yet, put control of the protos in the hands of Modbus.org. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the singular enlightenment shown in allowing wide use of the Modbus protos. I even hold them up as an example of how relinquishing absolute control has had
only good consequences. It's just that barriers remain for those who could best forward the intent behind those policies.
As an example, the MAT/Plc project still runs the risk, however small, that we can be ordered to cease and desist using Modbus and especially giving away code that implements the protocol as we have absolutely no control over how that code could be used or by whom. I have made polite and
repeated requests to clarify the situation one way or the other and keep being referred to a click through license that is simply irrelevent to
our situation. We have no legal entity to enter into an agreement and would simply like permission or at least assurance that we won't be sued.
Yet I believe they want us to use Modbus or at worst, don't care if we do what everyone else and their uncle is doing with Modbus. And I'm sure
they realize that it is impractical and utterly unenforcable for us to make users click through their license. We still have a technical
problem.
As one of a nebulous collection of volunteers operating clearly in the public interest, simply doing what a lot of other people are doing, I
doubt that it could be demonstrated that harm is being done. But, as the founder of the project, I want to do the right thing and I would like to
recognize their contribution to the project as we will need a great deal of cooperation from corporations to serve the community as we would like. A wink and a nod, or being ignored, denies them the position of being recognized for their forward thinking and insightful policies and keeps
me awake nights.
I see it as very important as we progress into a more open, more cooperative era, that these initial steps be recognized as historic and
ground breaking. That they be seen as positive actions rather than simply a failure to prosecute or the like. Why should the inevitable be seen as
negative? There is certainly enough demonstrated support and demand for openness to praise and recognize leadership rather than lip service.
Regards
cww
List Manager wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Lee J Ward <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: NET: Which Network To Use?
>
> As a proponent, the answer for me is easy. Modbus TCP is the way
> forward at this point in time. The modbus instruction set is truly
> open, not proprietry. Check out http://www.modbus.org Here you can
> check out the standards, realize the virtues and download some useful
> information. Let's face it, almost every automation vendor, many
> control instument providers and other equipment vendors have Modbus
> connectivity. Using TCP/IP as the transport is the next logical step.
> Move on or move over I say.
--
Free Tools!
Machine Automation Tools (LinuxPLC) Free, Truly Open & Publicly Owned
Industrial Automation Software For Linux. mat.sourceforge.net.
Day Job: Heartland Engineering, Automation & ATE for Automotive
Rebuilders.
Consultancy: Wide Open Technologies: Moving Business & Automation to
Linux.
only good consequences. It's just that barriers remain for those who could best forward the intent behind those policies.
As an example, the MAT/Plc project still runs the risk, however small, that we can be ordered to cease and desist using Modbus and especially giving away code that implements the protocol as we have absolutely no control over how that code could be used or by whom. I have made polite and
repeated requests to clarify the situation one way or the other and keep being referred to a click through license that is simply irrelevent to
our situation. We have no legal entity to enter into an agreement and would simply like permission or at least assurance that we won't be sued.
Yet I believe they want us to use Modbus or at worst, don't care if we do what everyone else and their uncle is doing with Modbus. And I'm sure
they realize that it is impractical and utterly unenforcable for us to make users click through their license. We still have a technical
problem.
As one of a nebulous collection of volunteers operating clearly in the public interest, simply doing what a lot of other people are doing, I
doubt that it could be demonstrated that harm is being done. But, as the founder of the project, I want to do the right thing and I would like to
recognize their contribution to the project as we will need a great deal of cooperation from corporations to serve the community as we would like. A wink and a nod, or being ignored, denies them the position of being recognized for their forward thinking and insightful policies and keeps
me awake nights.
I see it as very important as we progress into a more open, more cooperative era, that these initial steps be recognized as historic and
ground breaking. That they be seen as positive actions rather than simply a failure to prosecute or the like. Why should the inevitable be seen as
negative? There is certainly enough demonstrated support and demand for openness to praise and recognize leadership rather than lip service.
Regards
cww
List Manager wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Lee J Ward <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: NET: Which Network To Use?
>
> As a proponent, the answer for me is easy. Modbus TCP is the way
> forward at this point in time. The modbus instruction set is truly
> open, not proprietry. Check out http://www.modbus.org Here you can
> check out the standards, realize the virtues and download some useful
> information. Let's face it, almost every automation vendor, many
> control instument providers and other equipment vendors have Modbus
> connectivity. Using TCP/IP as the transport is the next logical step.
> Move on or move over I say.
--
Free Tools!
Machine Automation Tools (LinuxPLC) Free, Truly Open & Publicly Owned
Industrial Automation Software For Linux. mat.sourceforge.net.
Day Job: Heartland Engineering, Automation & ATE for Automotive
Rebuilders.
Consultancy: Wide Open Technologies: Moving Business & Automation to
Linux.