[LAU] Dishonest marketing and the term "Open Source"
j-kroll at gmx.de
Sat Oct 18 15:19:33 UTC 2014
Keith McMillen has marketed their QuNeo controller as "Open Source" on
Kickstarter and other places (google "quneo open source"), while
actually it is not "open source" for any reasonable definition of the
term. Editor software source code, which is crucial for using the
device with Linux, has only reluctantly been released to a closed group
of beta testers. People are understandably disappointed.
What do you think?
The following is from Keith McMillen forum:
> Currently, the Linux version of the editor crashes when I try to
> update presets. Of course, the source code for the editor still isn't
> released and there is no officially supported Linux version, so I
> don't expect this to be fixed any time soon. As I don't use or have
> Windows, this turns my QuNeo pretty much into a pretty expensive
> plastic brick. I can't even use it as a doorstop because it is so
> Keith McMillen have lied about the QuNeo being open source on
> Kickstarter right from the start, and used the "open source" tag for
> marketing. Yet no part of the product is open source: Not the
> schematics; not the firmware; not the editor. Apparently there was to
> be an SDK for the QuNeo which hasn't materialized yet, either.
> I believed the marketing and paid for an open source product;
> something I could hack and modify. I did not get what I paid for. The
> QuNeo is a closed-source brick, just like lots and lots of other
> controllers on the market.
> This has been discussed for months (years?) now, with no result. It
> seems obvious that Keith McMillen never intended to fulfill their
> "open source" promise from the start.
> I am advising my musician friends not to buy from Keith McMillen. It
> is likely they will get scammed.
More information about the Linux-audio-user