Thanks for your very detailed response @Mika , I really appreciate it!
About the open source firmware (development)
I don’t know if there would have been more interest in the open source repository if it would have been kept up to date. But I can image more people where waiting before the Github open source repository was updated. I read about various bug fixes and problems on the forum. That made me decide not to start working on the old (probably 0.10.4) version on Github. Often 0.x releases are releases that might see big architecture or API changes before the first 1.0 release. I also did not want to miss out on all the fixes between 0.10.4 and 0.11.2 just to add some functionality.
But if I understand you correctly. I should have made my changes to the old Github release and then contact you to include it in a new binary release? I do have some experience on working with open source project, but that’s usually all through a git(hub) repository. I guess I’m just not used to this way of working on an open source project. Perhaps you could add a note on this to the Github README.
About the new settings management, hardware abstraction layer for SC1/SC2 and not being happy with some things in the code base.
I guess the SC1/SC2 thing could be a valid reason for not releasing. But in any case 11 months is quite a long time to not update the repository, there could have been ways to work around this I guess. About the code not always being in a desirable state. For me personally I rather see updates which are not perfect then no updates at all. You could for example use a develop branch for this purpose.
About the various open and closed source software parts.
I have read a little on the wireless wheel functionality and I saw some images of the IC’s you are going to use. Do you also mean the way the BLE IC communicates with the base will not be documented. In other words I would not be able to build a wireless wheel which can communicate with the base using the IC you use or another compatible IC? That would be shame I think. I can off course make something else wireless myself and then use another box which feeds into the RJ45 connectors. But that would be an unnecessary waste of hardware, the SimuCUBE has all the capabilities to do this and I would like to connect most of my equipment directly to the SimuCUBE.
Also, is the SimuCUBE-configurator (https://github.com/SimuCUBE/SimuCUBE-configurator/tree/master) the repository of the configuration tool? Will this eventually become open source as well. I guess many features/improvements to the firmware need a way to be controlled from the configuration UI as well?
About the IP. I find it hard to judge if its really necessary to be that protective on the software side. I guess a lot of your customers buy into the brand, the people behind it, your expertise, way of communicating and so on. In a perfect world many brands would work together on an open (direct drive) force feedback platform, but I guess there is a good chance this will not happen in the foreseeable future. Also, I’m by far not an expert on this topic, more an idealist I guess. So take all of the above not too serious.
I will still keep an eye on the SimuCUBE firmware repository to see when an up to date release will be pushed. But I will also not hold back if I find some time to implement some ideas/features that I have in mind.