OpenMotics Offers Open Source (and Open Hardware) Home Automation

Home automation is a recurring topic around here; we've had stories about X-10-based home-brewed systems, a protocol designed for automation, and more than a few Ask Slashdots. Now, an anonymous reader writes OpenMotics is an open source home automation hardware and software system that offers features like switching lights and outputs, multi-zone heating and cooling, power measurements, and automated actions. The system encompasses both open source software and hardware. For interoperability with other systems, the OpenMotics Gateway provides an API through which various actions can be executed. The project was open sourced 2 years ago and was started about 10 years. The choice to open source the project was very conscious: we want to offer a system where users are in full control over their home automation system.

red for native ad right?

[0xdeaddead]

thanks!

Re:

[CaptQuark]

Umm.. Nope.

Pricing for power measurement

[fyngyrz]

I'm interested in power measurement (rolled my own), so I took a look.

The ready-to-buy pricing is interesting.

A power consumption measuring module for 8 lines is £324.00; a common breaker box with a capacity of 40 circuits will require five of these, for a total of £1620.00. Then you'll need 25- or 50-ampere current sensors, 40 of them at £12.00, adding £480.00. Now, if you want remote control through their cloud, add another £295.00 for the gateway module. The power supply mod

Cloud Managed?

[Akili]

I've thought about home automation for a while, and seeing an opened system such as this one is an immediate temptation! ...Except for the cloud management. I noticed right away that the gateway controller 'comes with a 1 year subscription'. Sure, I get that they're a business that needs to make money, but what if I want the system without cloud support? Is that even an option? For all they're touting openness, I couldn't find that obviously posted on their site. That's a pretty big deal-breaker for me, if I cannot disable their cloud integration. So what if I can't run it from a mobile phone? I'd rather use something like SSH and write my own interface, following my own desired rules for network security. And I sure as hell don't want it reporting anything back to them, or giving them the option in any way, shape, or form of sending remote commands when I have elected to not use their service. This is my home we're talking about. Guess I'll keep thinking about rolling my own, someday.

Re:Cloud Managed?

[WarJolt]

If you're interested in home automation, then you're probably familiar with the different protocols that exist which can work either wirelessly or over the powerline.
This system requires you to run 2 wires for the rs-485 to each module + power. This is not really convenient.
http://wiki.openmotics.com/ind... [openmotics.com]

ZigBee and Z-wave seems to be taking over. I love open source, but I'm probably going to go the proprietary route.
http://myharmony.com/products/... [myharmony.com]

Re:

[drinkypoo]

This system requires you to run 2 wires for the rs-485 to each module + power. This is not really convenient.

It's not convenient, but it is secure, compared to using wireless. At best using wireless leaves you open to a DoS attack, which makes it unsuitable for security use.

Re:

[mspohr]

If you actually read the first page, you would have seen that it is available as either a "cloud" version or as your own home server (without the "cloud" bits).

Re:

[Akili]

Hey, look at that. I did read the page, but I obviously did not scroll down enough through the graphics to find that note. It'd be nice if it were also on the page describing the gateway controller itself. It wasn't even listed on the FAQ (probably because it is on the front page, of course).
I'm still not thrilled about the cloud connection option being there, but that should be easily blockable using firewall rules. Good catch!

Piss poor open source

[WarJolt]

You can't even compile the firmware without paying for a compiler.

"The firmware of our modules is written in Pic Basic Pro (except for the power measurement module which is written in C). Pic Basic Pro is an easy to use programming language that can be learnt very easily. We provide all source code free of charge (GPLv2 licence). The Pic Basic Pro compiler however is not for free so we ask everyone to play fair and to purchase the compiler (PBP Gold edition that supports the Microchip 18F) from www.melabs.com." - http://wiki.openmotics.com/ind... [openmotics.com]

Re:Piss poor open source

[jones_supa]

The project is still fully open source.

You could as well download some open source blueprints and assembly instructions for building a nice wooden cabinet, but you still would have to buy the power drill yourself.

Re:

[Hognoxious]

This is why using the term open source for things other than actual code is bullshit.

Re:

[jones_supa]

Why would it cover anything than the actual code?

Re:

[turbidostato]

"The project is still fully open source."

That's quite arguably.

The vendor says: "The firmware of our modules is written in Pic Basic Pro [...] We provide all source code free of charge (GPLv2 licence)). The Pic Basic Pro compiler however is not for free"

And GPLv2 says:

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files

Re:

[rdnetto]

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

The wording of the GPL is quite clear - it only requires the Makefiles to be included, and even adds an exception for the compiler when included with the OS as a runtime dependency. It doesn't say anything about the requirement to include the compiler.

Keep in mind that when the GPL was first written, GCC was only 2 years old, and proprietary compilers were unavoidable in many areas. Even today, proprietary compilers are still unavoidable for certain applications. e.g. FPGAs. To require the publishers of ope

Re:

[turbidostato]

"The wording of the GPL is quite clear - it only requires the Makefiles to be included, and even adds an exception for the compiler when included with the OS as a runtime dependency. It doesn't say anything about the requirement to include the compiler."

In fact, it does. It adds an *exception* to include the compiler when it is already included and easily avaliable along the OS. This implies that when this is not the case, the compiler should be included since otherwise the source can't stand alone.

Anyway

Re:

[davydagger]

But its not Free software. Free software specifies that the tools needed to build must also be Free.

Too expensive

[photonic]

With 50 euro for a power supply, 100 for a sensor conditioning module (without the sensors!), 300 for a base station and 800 for a complete starter pack, I don't care if it is open source or not, it is way out of budget for the casual hobbyist. There are already enough [openenergymonitor.org] different [opentrv.org.uk] alternatives [openremote.org], most of which appear to be vapourware. Home automation seems easy enough that many people who follow the IoT hype start their own project. But we don't need more standards [xkcd.com], we need less. The best would be if one of the existing protocols [openhab.org] (not necessary that one) would win, so that people could mix and match their own components, which don't have to be more fancy than some arduinos and RPis [instructables.com] thrown together.

Regarding your suggestion-

[arfonrg]

"OpenHAB - developed in Java" Yeah, no thanks!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I thought the point of the exercise was to make things more affordable. I got sucked in by the slashvertisement and looked at their prices. It's quite spendy. So if I'm going to spend THAT kind of money, I personally would opt to just pay for whatever is the best integrated solution in that space and be done with it.

Maybe next time some company backhands slashdot to feature their product, they'll due more due dilligence. I know...I know...but a man can dream....

Certification?

[evilad]

How do you get past the certification problem in an open hardware design? I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Canada, you're on very shaky legal ground if you go plugging in equipment that isn't CSA certified.

Source: am building automation engineer.

Re:

[wertigon]

That's easy. Hardware once created is permanent. Take the good old NES console - it's still the same old console now, as it was 1985. There's almost 30 years between that!

Therefore it won't be hard at all to get a consumer device CSA-certified. After all, some company is producing that device, meaning they are in control of how, when and why it is built. That doesn't change even if the hardware is open.

Open Hardware means the schematics are open for everyone to make use of. It does not mean that you can mag

Re:

[evilad]

It seems like the safety bar is much lower for low-voltage battery powered devices. So your system is probably OK using non-certified components as long as they only collect and provide information, and are never hardwired into the mains, and don't exist inside a junction box.

Would it work to have a small collection of certified relays, dimmers, motor controllers, etc, all of which can accept input from uncertified devices?

Re:

[evilad]

It is not difficult, but it is very expensive to get a consumer device CSA or UL approved. You must re-certify for any tiny change in design, or in some cases, for changes in manufacturing process. As I understand it, the certification applies only to the certificate holder, not to anyone else who happens to choose to manufacture from a design that someone else has successfully certified.

So my question is about how you would safely and legally use the homebuilt result of an open hardware design, where the

Re:

[wertigon]

If it's a device someone else built that you yourself is trying to replicate in your own environment, then it would be perfectly fine to do so. Those certifications are first and foremost intended as a safeguard measure so that device manufacturers does not sell equipment that are hazardous in any way. Electricity is, after all, not very healthy in large quantities, and neither is radiation.

However, in your home, noone can tell you what you can and can't build. A home-built device could be every bit as safe

Must be a day ending in Y

[larwe]

... because there's a group advertising that it's launching an open-source home automation control platform/protocol/widget. And naturally this is going to be the One Protocol To Bind Them All, there will be a grand unification (about as likely as North and South Korea unifying tomorrow, by the way). The world does not lack "universal" or "open source" HA control protocols and products, it lacks manufacturers willing to support them, or even open their own control systems to support them. If there was such

hardware is the challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

For home automation (or industrial control), it's not the software that's a challenge, or even the hardware schematics. It's *building* the hardware that is the hard part, especially at low cost. 30 years ago, I was dismantling X10 modules to retrofit them into track lighting cans, and I got a real appreciation for how hard it is to make good *inexpensive* controls (X10 is not good, but they were cheap, esp through DAK mailorder). Those X10 units dissipate a lot of heat, and are not tolerant of being hot:

Re:

[mrchaotica]

And you really want a wireless solution, either RF (Zigbee, for example) or carrier current (X10). Carrier current, these days, is probably no cheaper than RF, and RF doesn't have anywhere near the interference and propagation issues that carrier current does.

No, what you really want is a low-voltage wiring standard (which encompasses both power and control, so that you can directly drive LED lighting without having a bunch of 120VAC transformers everywhere). That way you could wire the house once and not h

security missing

[Brucutus]

It seems they're missing home security in their use case. Is it me or do half the home automation solutions seem to forget to integrate hardwired and wireless door/window security. At least with openHAB this is allowed even if a binding needs to be written to interface with the security system.