Thank you guys for the inputs!
We never provide enough support because of experience and resources, but it does not mean we are keeping secrets or unwilling to serve the community.
DSO Nano is getting more and more mature with contributions including BenF’s firmware has benefit the community greatly. . People have clear understanding of this and express it. Since the contributions are granting better user experience, it’s less important to be in open source or closed way. IMHO, open source is more a voluntary deed, we can only encourage but not force everybody to share alike.
For DSO Nano’s firmware, we have paused upgrading as most of the engineering resources has been assigned to DSO Quad. We could provide better value on hardware and manufacturing part, it’s sincerely appreciated to have community loving this product and contribute to its software. We are not experienced in open source software management, which lead to complaints in above posts. Thanks Tormord for hosting it on gitorious! (The trunk on google code is mistakenly removed, could be recovered ASAP.)
We always wanted to support the efforts, rather than arbitrarily feed and decide for community. The engineering sample and upcoming licensing mechanism are two options we are trying, surely not enough.
Just had an idea for discussion: Can Seeed pay to get prominent close innovations open? If everybody likes the firmware and wants to learn/improve from it, we could negotiate with designer for some conditions including cash benefit. A lot details to be considered, but we regard it fair to compensate for the time professionals devoted.