openecu.org

Colby, is this true?

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpos ... stcount=68

Please respond, this is a serious accusation.

Thanks for noticing. I have posted some responses in that thread.

cboles wrote:Thanks for noticing. I have posted some responses in that thread.

Great, thanks.

Well, if anyone is reading, I came down pretty hard on Trey and David. However, I think at this point it's worth it. I'm really tired of their continuous BS.

However, one thing has become clear to me. Colby, one thing you need to be very meticulous about is document everything you have done. Good documentation is the only defense against raving *ssholes. On a more serious note, it is also the method that US patents are issued. Inventors will document their invention as it unfolds, and then sign and date it during the submission process. It is considered a solid defense, legally.

I will post again on the other subie tuning boards, and hopefully everyone making software will keep accurate records of what they are doing.

I read that and I could hear the beep beep beep of trey back stepping to apoligize for inacurate comments. I think Colby handled the accuisations professionaly and I feel that treys coments were a shot across openecus/colbys bow that deserved the response they received.

This seems to be a random recurrence every 6 months or so. I'm not really sure what brings it on... Thanks for the support though.

F them.
the only tuning company who hasn't made a dick of themselves is turboXS, mainly because the UTEC has nothing to do with the stock programming.

cboles wrote:This seems to be a random recurrence every 6 months or so. I'm not really sure what brings it on... Thanks for the support though.

Yeah no kidding. I can't figure that out to save my life. Why would he put his credibility on the line based on hearsay? I'm still trying to figure that out. Especially since the truth would be so easy to verify, it takes like 10 minutes.

BTW, I thought I read somewhere around here that you and Trey were on good terms (like 2 months ago)?

I don't see why we couldn't be on good terms - although I have never really spoke to Trey personally. I have run into their tuner Christian before and thought he was a really nice guy. I think user base between the Cobb products and the OpenECU stuff is different enough that it shouldn't be that threatening anyway.

Colby why didn't you throw the OPENECU KERNEL source in their face? You have posted it here quite some time ago!!!
On the other hand i don't see how openecu is related to the stupid things that a company does. They want to lock their stuff, no problem. We shouldn't give a isht, because we can flash our cars.
I wish someone could sue their ass for selling ROMS, then it would be fun.

I will be posting all of the current source very soon. I just need to put the OS license info in all of the files.

Kind of OT to this thread but the doubt arraised when i was reading the thread, if I flash my car using ECUFlash, will the AP still be able to conect to the ECU later on?

Blindstuff wrote:Kind of OT to this thread but the doubt arraised when i was reading the thread, if I flash my car using ECUFlash, will the AP still be able to conect to the ECU later on?

Yes.

Keep in mind up until this latest development, the same was true in reverse. Protections like this are not inherent in the ECU design once you know how to read and write. So they have to be specifically added. The natural state is no, no protections.

Ecuflash has no protections in place, so yes, an AP will never have any trouble overwriting an ECU that was previously flashed with Ecuflash. Short of Colby adding such ability later to lock down the ECU, which seems counter to the whole idea.

cboles wrote:I will be posting all of the current source very soon. I just need to put the OS license info in all of the files.

you rock. But you knew that.

Wow. just seems like they (EcuTek rep) are just digging themselves a bigger hole...

Keep up the good work!