Asking Canon to release their source code

[fbonomi]

1. CHDK breaks no law (not even DMCA)

What about all the links to firmware dumps we have around?

2. That will be a lot of bad publicity for them. I for one would not hesitate to boycott them if they do such a stupid thing.

Mhh.. imagine the newspapers: "Canon shuts down a gang of russian hackers that were copying their firmware" ... Do you see many people boycotting Canon for that ? :-)

3. They indirectly benefit from it. More sold P&S cameras.

I have a Sony, and I bought an A570 just to run CHDK on it, but .... how many people will stop buying higher-end cameras if CHDK gives them so many features to play with?

[DataGhost]

I think Canon just 'ignores' us because we might be valuable. They let us have the fun and they might get new ideas from CHDK Example: iPodLinux developers coded something which allowed movies to be played on iPods, albeit black/white (or color but only one model had that at that time). Several months later, Apple announced that new iPods would ship with a video playback function.

And to reply to point 2 and 3: CHDK really isn't that big. Sure, there are "a lot" of references but it's still fairly unknown, especially for the "normal customer". "Normal customers" don't care about RAW, shutter overrides and whatever, they just buy a camera and are quite satisfied with the images it produces, even if they're marginally better than a crappy phone cam. So basically, there aren't a lot of CHDK users to boycot Canon in a way that they'll notice it and consequently, there won't be a lot of people buying Canon cameras specifically for CHDK.

I have a Sony, and I bought an A570 just to run CHDK on it, but .... how many people will stop buying higher-end cameras if CHDK gives them so many features to play with?

There are some things CHDK cannot fix. I still want a DSLR, mainly because of the performance in low-light conditions without the possibility to use flash. I really doubt people would buy a compact instead of DSLR just because CHDK runs on it. Even then, people are working on firmware for DSLRs and I'll actively join them the moment I get mine...

[RaduP]

What about all the links to firmware dumps we have around?

Fair use Some reverse engineering is allowed for compatibility issues.

Mhh.. imagine the newspapers: "Canon shuts down a gang of russian hackers that were copying their firmware" ... Do you see many people boycotting Canon for that ? :-)

No, of course.
On the other hand, I am sure it will make it to sites such as Digg.com (millions of readers), where people are much more educated.

I have a Sony, and I bought an A570 just to run CHDK on it, but .... how many people will stop buying higher-end cameras if CHDK gives them so many features to play with?

I have a DSLR, but bought the A570 because of CHDK.
Of course, I still use my DSLR more, but it's fun to play with a camera that you can program to some extent. CHDK is a realtively new project, but people talk about it, and many new people find out about it every day.

[RaduP]

one thing for sure: i cant even get my hands on one of the official canon SDKs (for remote controlling my P&S cams), how the hell will i be allowed getting the sourcecode? if ever, the code would only be released in exchange for a written NDA i suppose. same thing with the sdks, i guess this is the reason you cannot download them anywhere on the web.

Well, you are an individual, so a big company like Canon won't even read your message. But if they get a petition from a lot of their customers or potential customers, they might at least read it.
As with any company that is in business after many decades, they care about their customers to some extent, and IMO, having such a petition can't hurt.

[Psychokitty]

Sigh...
So you think you should start up a petition to make sure Canon knows about CHDK (-in case they don't already), and ask them to release their source code, with a soft, gentle threat of boycotting their products if they refuse?

You have several people who have responded to this, who apparently do know a bit more than you do, saying that this is a bad idea.
Please compare the realistic percentage of success in the gains you seek by doing this to the more probable odds of damage you could cause in the long run.

It's really quite simple; Canon's not giving you or anyone else the code for anything, no matter what.
Canon most likely currently thinks of the CHDK "community" as inconsequential. If you toss a big petition at them to demonstrate that it's not, then they are not going to regard us as quite so "inconsequential" anymore, and RaduP that's not a good thing, that's a bad thing.

[A_Str8]

I'm sure Canon doesn't see CHDK or the community that revolves around it as inconsequential. No hardware maker will see the community that hacks their products as inconsequential. Still, it seems that Canon has chosen not to make an open move - either to encourage CHDK development or discourage it. I'm sure they are aware of CHDK and I'm sure they know ways in which they could help the efforts. If they're smart, they'd be regularly monitoring this forum and the wiki. If they already know all of this, I doubt a petition would make any difference in there policy regarding CHDK - whatever it is.

[RaduP]

I'm sure Canon doesn't see CHDK or the community that revolves around it as inconsequential. No hardware maker will see the community that hacks their products as inconsequential.

I am not sure on how Canon looks at CHDK, but I don't think they take this projects very seriously. It doesn't cost them any money, and most companies that offer end user products are rarely bothered by the modder community (unless if those modders do stuff like disabling copyright protection and stuff like that).

Still, it seems that Canon has chosen not to make an open move - either to encourage CHDK development or discourage it. I'm sure they are aware of CHDK and I'm sure they know ways in which they could help the efforts. If they're smart, they'd be regularly monitoring this forum and the wiki. If they already know all of this, I doubt a petition would make any difference in there policy regarding CHDK - whatever it is.

I don't really see a big company coming to a small group of developers and saying: "Hey, we like your work, how about we give you the SDK?"
But if their customers come to them in large numbers and say: "You know, that new camera model do not support CHDK because you guys made it hader for the CHDK developers to hack it, so we are instead going to buy an older model off Ebay, so that we can use CHDK with it", then they might be more willing to cooperate with the CHDK project.
It's ultimately about money, and if people vote with their wallet, then companies usually listen.

One case is the King Quest 9 game. A group of fans started working at this game, Vivendi Universal told them to stop, then a lot of people contacted Vivendi Universal, which eventually told them: "Ok, go head, make your game".
Another case is Compaq/HP sponsoring an effort to port Linuc to their PDAs. And there are many, many examples where big companies realized that working with their fans is actually a good idea.

[A_Str8]

And there are many, many examples where big companies realized that working with their fans is actually a good idea.

There are also many examples where big companies go the opposite route - where they try to force people to stop modifying their products. Big companies can get extremely touchy about unofficial mods. To a company like Canon, the size of the community wouldn't mean much. The one essential fact is that their firmware has been hacked and all the related info is openly available. This is not just some modder community adding on to their product - this is a modder community that has cracked their products.

They could continue to ignore CHDK, they could try to capitalize on it (use it to seel more cameras, recruit developers, etc.), or they could try to fight it. Way too often, companies take the third option despite the (sound IMO) reasons you gave for them not to.

And one more thing - you seem to underestimate individuals and small groups of developers. Keep in mind that a single developer can write code that effects millions. Napster was made by one guy (or was it a small group?) Myspace was two guys. This small group of developers has already written code that's caught the interest of many of the top tech blogs on the internet - blogs that are read by millions of people.

[RaduP]

Hmm, I am not aware of any company that even tried (officially, by litigation) to stop people from modifying the firmware of their products, with the exception of stuff such as hacking encryption keys from DVD, HDDVD, Blueray and game consoles.
Perhaps you can provide an example?

AFAIK, modifying the firmware, when not done with the intent to circumvent copyright protection, is NOT illegal. There were some printers makers who tried to sue those who hacked their cartridges for compatibility reasons, but AFAIK, they lost.

And I am very much aware of the power of a few developers, I am the founder of a relatively successful project.

[A_Str8]

Hmm, I am not aware of any company that even tried (officially, by litigation) to stop people from modifying the firmware of their products, with the exception of stuff such as hacking encryption keys from DVD, HDDVD, Blueray and game consoles.
Perhaps you can provide an example?

Damn! I knew you were gonna ask that 

I dunno of any cases that actually went to trial, but big companies love their cease and desist letters. The one situation that comes to mind is the one that involved Creative. Apparently they've been really slow about developing Vista drivers for their sound cards. An single developer decided to do it for them and ended up coming to the rescue of many of their customers. He got a cease and desist letter from them. (I think they eventually backed down after they got a lot of negative press). Here's the link http://gizmodo.com/373748/creative-presents-cease+and+desist-note-to-developer-hero

Here's another example http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/apple-cds-macintel-sites-118018.php

[RaduP]

Oh, yes, forgot about the Creative case.
But if you folowed it (and I did a little), the vasty majority of people posting on Creative's forum were very clear: "Creative, I am never going to buy your garbage again, ktnxb!". The same reaction was mirrored on other sites that carried the story, such as Digg.com Because of how they acted, I am also never going to buy anything Creative Labs, ever again (and I have 2 sound cards from them at the moment).

If Canon things that Creative did the right thing, and they want to follow their very successful PR strategy [/sarcasm], then I guess they can try and see what happens.

As for Apple, they are a bunch of morons who will send C&D letters to everyone, but I'd really wish to see them having the balls to take such a case to court. Not only they would lose in this particular case, but the party being sued would be able to counter sue them for a frivolous lawsuit and ask for damages.