Premise PremiseSystems.Com

[chucklyons]

If any of you have logged into Builder lately and noticed that the old virus-laden PremiseSystems.com page is gone (replaced by a url redirect to the Cocoontech forums), you may be wondering what happened?!!
 
The PremiseSystems.com URL became available, so we purchased it!! It is now in the hands of Premise-friendly enthusiasts!
 
Given that, we expect we'll find a home for all of the SW modules written for Premise; some getting started tips, who knows?
 
What we (more info on the 'who' will be coming in the future) would like to know - what would YOU like to see?  (maybe we'll get that email up for syscrashes!)
 
Feel free to drop a note, add to this topic, etc. We hope to hear from you!
 
 
 
 

 

[samgreco]

I have a dedicated webserver if you need space

 

[georgejm]

I did notice that.  Nice work!!!!

 

[mhilbush]

This is great!  
 
What I'd also like would be to get a copy of the source code.  Back before the Motorola split-up, and the subsequent acquisition of Motorola Mobility by Google, I had attempted to use some of my Motorola contacts to get the code put into the public domain -- without success.
 
Now, after all the acquisitions, I'm not even sure who has the source code anymore.  Has anyone else been able to track it down?

 

[samgreco]

I assumed that it followed the sale to Google back when.  But not sure.  I would have expected Google to keep it when they sold off the hardware side of Moto, since they tend to hoard software IP.  But I would also expect that it would take a Herculean effort for Google to even figure out if they DO own it.
 
But if they do, it's something I bet they would release to the public as open source, considering the time that has past.
 
Or that could all just be wishful thinking.

 

[chucklyons]

I think it went -> Lantronix->Motorola->Google->Arriss.  I've contacted Arriss twice. No response yet. Maybe I'll drive over there... ^_^

 

[samgreco]

Could be.  But I'm pretty sure that Google stripped away a bit of intellectual property as it passed through.  And Premise was unrelated to the hardware stuff they sold off. 
 
Don't know anyone at Google though.

 

[mhilbush]

I have a former coworker who's at Google now.  I'll email him to see if I can find the right contact person.

 

[mhilbush]

I think it went -> Lantronix->Motorola->Google->Arriss.  I've contacted Arriss twice. No response yet. Maybe I'll drive over there... ^_^

 
Don't forget, there were 2 Motorola companies for a while.  
 
Lantronix -> Motorola -> Motorola Mobility -> Google -> Arriss
                                    -> Motorola Solutions -> Zebra

 

[fischershaw]

Funny. I had a redirect on my DNS server so that I never went to that virus-laden site.
 
Reviving the Premise code has been talked about in the past. After speaking with Dan Quigley (he lives just down the road from me), it is my understanding that the legal issues would be huge, and the companies involved see no benefit in determining who owns what any longer. Unless of course they see possible infringement on something they might own. At that point they may come after you.
 
What about adding a compatibility layer to OpenHAB2? IMHO they need to fix some stuff anyway in their new XML definitions, and the more people complain (or work on the project), the better. It would be a way of going forward.

 

[chucklyons]

Premisesystems.com has been abandoned for a long time. Or at least not owned by anyone who cares. I'll keep plugging away at picking it up. I've been thru the M&A activity before; it's not impossible to get it sorted out; just a pain in the butt. They could put the source into an escrow account to maintain the original source, then it can be modified w/o impacting the IP. Many other options...
 
It's convoluted to be sure; the IP attorney I use for advice thinks it's a matter of time. And perseverance. I prob have more of the latter than the former
 
At least now I don't have to deal with the virus bombs.

 

[chucklyons]

btw, the OpenHab2 looks interesting. UI is awful, from what I briefly looked at. Many, many 'bindings', which I assume to be drivers. That is very, very appealing. On the commercial side of thing, <opinion> the lack of drivers directly impacts the adoption of the HA system</opinion>. I think Crestron and Control4 figured out how to tackle that problem...thanks for the pointer.

 

[fischershaw]

What I like about OpenHAB is that it is open source and Java, and so in theory portable and interpreted. What I don't like is the lack of documentation, which seems to be true for most open source projects.
 
If one really wants to stick with the Premise model without trying to slap it on top of OpenHAB, a rewrite in Java might still be optimal.