How to support and maintain authors of custom code?

I think that is a bad idea... Or at least one I wouldn't participate in, in any case.

Hubitat doesn't own my code, can't use my code directly without permission (when they start sharing their app/driver code, they can use mine, too. Not that they would want to :wink: ), and I think hosting it in a repository they own muddies that water more than I would prefer.

Other developers can do as they wish, though, of course.


I don't think this is the point. Every developer is allowed to chose the license of their liking and shouldn't be forced to use a license a company chose.

The point really is that no one should complain about the license being used by a developer for FREE work that they are allowed to use and even get support on. It is up to the user to decide to either use the SW under the terms or find something else or spend the time to develop it themselves.


Amen. I agree. 100%.


Complaints about that...

But the emphasis of my post is meant to be on a solution, not the complaining part. I just posted one solution. I'm not perfect and therefore others think different about it. That's good. I just want us all to think and maybe come up with a proper solution, or multiple ones. And because it's also in the best interest of the Hubitat company I hope you'll help with it.

Well, the complainers just got what they had coming, no more sharing from this developer. In US it's called 'looking a gift horse in the mouth'.

There is no magic wand solution for this. @Cobra is one of the few community developers who offered rock solid code. How do you deal with the apps that are not so solid? Who decides this? Who accepts responsibility for support? Etc. Etc. The reason Hubitat has always said that we don't support user apps and drivers is because it has been demonstrated time and time again that these are frequently the source of major problems for the hubs they are installed on. Not Cobra's, but many others. See this post for a great example:


All perfectly true reasons to not look for a solution of course. But is it helping in any way? I'm trying to make this into a sort of brainstorm about possible solutions. First thing you do with brainstorming is not give any reason why not to do some things, but rather agraggate all thoughts all together. Round 2 can be to do pro's and con's of them all.

Very nice said, but not well thought of because the amount of people who got what they where asking for is a very small group compared to the group who actually don't complain and just agree with it all.

We have spent a good bit of effort on this topic. We would like a solution. The difficult fact is that the investment required to create a solution is not warranted at this time. Rehashing this topic is futile, imo.


To be totally fair I don't mind paying a fee (yearly or what so ever) to maintain code up to date. For new features it's possible to up the fee or make a different branch of the code with it's own fee.

Heck I even wouldn't mind paying a subscription to Hubitat for it's apps / drivers. Since the price of a hub is very low and we do "need" new software from your part.

Paying a fee has been offered by multiple users before.

Take Bruce's response at face value - they aren't interested in the effort it would take to fix this issue right now. That doesn't mean they wouldn't like to fix it, but just that it doesn't make sense from a resource or cost standpoint right now.


I'm confused on how this is an HE issue. HE is not dependent on the community for drivers and apps. The users who have devices that are NOT supported or who can't use the built in apps/RM to fill their needs are the ones who are dependent on the community developers.

HE does provide support for devices and apps by releasing updates which cover new devices and abilities to create apps. The fact that they go out of their way to help local developers to hone their skills and fill the gaps is a value add. To have them consider solutions to are being voiced by the developer community is a step beyond.

Fundamentally I don't understand how implying HE has some responsibility has any validity. It confuses things and takes away the focus of responsibility from the developers, which is where it resides.


For a product to hit a critical mass to be worth maintaining and further innovating I believe it is. You could have seen it in the numbers presented on Cobra's website about how many users his apps have. Also on this forum about all the talk about and needs of people beyond what HE delivers by themselves. So therefore I do think it's critical for HE to do something to make sure not all community developers stop sharing code. So that's why I think this is also their discussion. I'm not saying they have to come up with a solution. I'm also not saying they have to take care of the solution. I'm only hoping they want to see how valuable a solution is and help us find one together. Instead of putting this away and waiting for the inevitable.

1 Like

Fine, but let us find a or multiple solutions then. But the sad thing is that I only here reason why it won't work. But no possibilities. There are far greater open source projects in the world, how do they deal with it?

The reason @Cobra has done this is, in his words

There have been a few people questioning my motives recently, telling me that I have no right to change the license terms for my code, and telling me that, if I don’t want to release ‘open source’ code, then I should not release at all.

and he has every right to do this.
All people had to do was respect his decision/right to do this and I dare say we would not be having this discussion.


Any customer developer can pull their code for any reason, at any time. That's the nature of community development, and you can't stop it.

Yes, you can foster a friendly and collaborative environment, but in the end that doesn't guarantee a developer won't do the same thing if their time, life priorities, health, etc change.

I don't see there being anything to "fix" per se. I think it is the nature of the beast.

1 Like

@frits, you still missing the point somewhat. Open source is open source, meaning there is a license attached to it that is legally enforceable.
Making any kind of "app store" has really two options:

  1. Enforce a license by the "app store" -> This will mean that people that don't want to go with the license enforced will simple not publish their app
  2. Let developers define their license of choosing -> no difference to today

Honest to god, for me this is all about entitlement. I cannot understand why someone would question a developer AND tell the developer "you shouldn't publish your stuff here if it is not license XYZ" even though the developer has done nothing but good for the community by sharing his efforts. That is just plain and simple wrong and shows a level of entitlement where I wish we all had jumped on and put these individuals in there place instead of arguing about it here. And I include myself here, I wish I had opened my damn mouth when I saw that discussion going on.


And I fully agree with him and why everything went like this. But I hope this is not the future we are looking at. Just because there are some people who cannot respect his decision and just stop using his app (because of their principles), we are all paying the price now. And that is what I want to prevent from happening in the future, because nobody would benefit from that.

1 Like

There always have been and always will be entitled people, and people with contrary opinion/beliefs. And those people will express those opinions on forums.

That doesn't mean it is/they are right, but it is not going to change. If that is the problem you think needs fixing, you will not be successful.

I believe that is called....... HomeSeer

Really? How's the zigbee device driver coverage in home seer? :wink:

It is so covered you can't even see it :smile:

1 Like