That was a suggestion of how to make a commercial device piracy resistant. Rather than try to forcibly stop the pirate (which is relatively easy to eventually break), it just makes it easy for the pirate to ship a flawed copy, which costs them a lot later on.

In practice, it's rare to find open source hardware that doesn't have at least some open source software to go with it.

Some unscrupulous importer on the state side and manufacture in Chinaland collaborated with sketchy businesses stateside in knock off component market and it is beyond just the bottom line of the pirates. http://www.ibtimes.com/why-pentagon-...uipment-701214



Such method as intentional malware planting is an evil terroristic approach as the flawed copy can impact beyond the bottom lines of the pirate. I wouldn't be surprised if China coded software would pull off such a feat though, they pulled off data stealing malware scandal in hardware sold for logistics and shipping use.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/80742.html?rss=1

That's the argument line, but I think you identify more with for-profit software developer and you have some sort of association with for-profit embedded firmware developers. You vehemently oppose closed source hardware, but not so on closed-source copyrighted firmware software.

Software copyrighting and proliferation of software bottle necked proprietary systems is the issues with embedded systems.

Open source makes such measures easy to find and defeat. Make the whole thing open source if you want complete trust. But like it or not, it's going to be basically impossible to get rid of all closed source "binary blobs".

And there is an open source energy measurement device out there, software and hardware:
Home | OpenEnergyMonitor

but you hold or have future plans of vested financial interest in closed source, money payment involving, embedded systems firmware crap, do you not?

I actually prefer that everything be open source, but that's more or less an unattainable goal...

but you hold or have future plans of vested financial interest in closed source, money payment involving, embedded systems firmware crap, do you not?

Actually, I think open source is a great way to keep the closed source vendors honest. Probably the best example is when Linux was threatening to take over the desktop, Microsoft was forced into making the consumer versions of Windows reliable.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

But do you stand to gain personally either in status, recognition, or financially from CODES, SOFTWARE or EMBEDDED FIRMWARE that go with "open source" hardware you try so hard to advocate together with lousy foreign made junk parts?

Do you really think Microsoft would have made consumer Windows reliable if they didn't have to?

I don't sell software. Like it or not, there's a strong push towards using programmable logic in even the simplest of things.

It's a false cause. You just pulled out what you think it is out of your rear, but you didn't prove the cause.

I didn't ask if you sell software retail. I asked if you have vested interest, financially, status, position, contract award, etc from software or embedded firmware, such as being a provider to embedded craptem based solution who indirectly derive profit from developing/coding or manipulating the software part of " embedded system "