Easylase wrapper for Laserworld DAC

Code:

---

Easylase wrapper for Laserworld DAC v0.1b

Information:
This wrapper allows the laserworld DAC to be used with software that support the easylase DAC.

Limitations:
- Laserworld driver has no option to set the number of times a frame needs to be repeated so  EasyLaseWriteFrameNR will also repeat the frame forever.
- Wrapper has only be tested using minilumax test utility using 1 DAC. Using multiple DAC’s should work but is untested.
- DMX & TTL functions are not implemented yet.

---

For now I don't have more time but this might be usefull for some to play with. ;)

Nice work! ....

Not to be a party pooper or anything. I do applaud the effort. Making anything that works well is good. But have the EasyLase folks over at JMLaser changed their mind about wrapper DLLs?

Change log:
- Implemented DMX & TTL functions
- Small improvements

Download: <REMOVED>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfavreau

But have the EasyLase folks over at JMLaser changed their mind about wrapper DLLs?

---

I must admit that I didn’t ask this question to myself when I developed the wrapper.
It was created using publicly available documents that didn’t contain any license information.
Actually this wrapper idea isn’t new: http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...ead.php?t=4608.
Now don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying we can all drive thru red because someone else did it.
It is created for hobbyists that would like to try some other software but don’t have the supported hardware (yet)

Hey no problem. I did ask.. and I got a brisk no. I totally feel the same way. If you publish the interface then we should be able to take advantage of it.. especially since there isn't any sort of terms of use in the document.

Ha... I probably shouldn't have asked and just done. Oh well... Anyways I applaud your effort. Writing DLL's that work takes some effort.

Would you like to focus your efforts on an open source API. I have been talking with Dr. Lava and Zoof and I think is a definite thing. I am pretty sure we can ask nicely and get some games to use it.

Let me know if you are interested.

, Chris

Sounds like an interesting project, you can count me in.

Dennis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfavreau

If you publish the interface then we should be able to take advantage of it.. especially since there isn't any sort of terms of use in the document.
...
Ha... I probably shouldn't have asked and just done.

---

We published the API years ago to allow other programmers and hobby laserists writing their own software for EasyLase DACs . Naturally we didn't all the work to support competitor interfaces. This is no hobby for us. And we don't work for free. But if anybody of you decides to work for free for his boss from now on, we invite him to quit his job and start working without payment for us :)
Okay, the thing backfired. We have learned from this.
There will be changes in the future:
- software programmers: please never ask us for free interfaces again.
- future documents will include pages full of license notes and terms of use, if you feel better with that (Sounds like "Do not put pets in the microwave to dry them").
We will retain a lawyer to help us through this complicate stuff.
The cost for this will naturally make our products cheaper :)
- future hardware will have different operating modes, including secured and crypted ones
- in the future it will be more difficult for people using one and the same hardware for different software, because also the software companies have learned from all this and lock their software against unwanted hardware.

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

First of all I want to make clear that I do not work for a company active in the laser industry. I’ve created the file to be able to try some other software and decided to share it with other hobbyist. Back then I didn’t see anything bad in it but it seems you don’t agree and the reason you give is of course fair.

I removed the download link and will ask the administrator to remove the attachments from my first post.

Please understand that it was never my intension to make you guys angry or change your business model.

I also do not work for a laser show company. I do this stuff for a hobby too. I like to get paid for my hobby too but also like to - GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. Without the community I would have had a much harder time getting into laser shows. So some of the stuff I do I give away to the general public and some stuff I sell. I pretty much try to follow the Golden Rule as far as ethics go (we are human though and we make mistakes).

I am currently trying to work towards not using peoples hard work taken by mistake by others. I have to say that Joachim did a great job on his EasyLase DAC and interface. It is nice hardware too.

My current goals are to create an interface for which the hobby guys and others may use to interface a wide variety of hardware. That way the hobby software writer can have a larger audience without as much effort and the hardware creators can have a larger software base. Of course the better software/hardware will be more popular (better in what ways? who knows)...

The API that I am working on is open, it will not carry a viral license so that the software and hardware guys can keep their work closed if they want. If you don't put a license with your stuff now a days you are treading on thin ice (doesn't need to be legal stuff just what you see in readmes on the shows and images on this site).

SrS, you needn't feel bad or pull your wrapper. He was already doing this long before you posted your solution. The reasons go much beyond the stated ones, and include protecting market share and margin though exclusive deals with software vendors, preventing widespread Chinese clone competition, and preventing compatible DIY devices. Naturally the API encryption that he talks about will cost more, but this is the price consumers will pay apparently for the manufacturers to maintain vendor lock-in.
DACs are becoming simple enough that they could approach a commodity status, so to prevent this private contracts are forged and some interoperability is denied. Back when these sellers were starting and had a small marketshare, they published the API to gain a foothold. How that it is widely used, this is not necessary. Even the lumax started out as an open project with available code, and eventually it was closed up and commercialized.

So, naturally the solution to closed inter-operability is wrappers like the one you posted.

Now, this is not to speak poorly of Joachim, he has done well with his DAC and with creating partnerships with software companies. As a businessman he must decide whether closed interface is best for his company's future. He has been supportive of his DACs and maintained good communication, and all of this adds to the value of his product in a way DIY devices cannot enjoy.
I see it as somewhat unfortunate that the industry has gone this route, really it re-enforces how great HE-Laserscan software really is, with all the DACs it supports and being free as well, it stands alone as a free, capable show creation and player tool.

So, SrS I.M.O. you created a solution to a compatibility problem, but this as you see was a problem at least one manufacturer in the industry now wants to exist, and will go to great lengths to maintain. Your solution can still benefit many users out there.