Just to be clear, there would still be an OS version. What I’m proposing is to have another “transport layer” that is not OS (due to the licensing constraints) that allows us to support things that are not currently possible due to lack of information. We know from personal discussions with Sigma that they have no intention of making this part of ZWave public any time soon.
To me, there are the two options - we either continue as we are with the open source binding that probably has issues, and certainly lacks features that people are regularly asking for, or, we provide an alternative and this must be closed source.
I suspect it would be difficult for the foundation to handle this due to the legal bumf that has to be signed to. In any case, while it’s a not an insignificant amount of money, I already spend a lot of money to support this binding and the users on this forum by purchasing equipment for testing etc. I don’t see anyone complaining, and to me this is a very similar situation (although if the foundation also wants to buy all my test hardware then I’m sure we can do a deal ).
I will move ahead with this to try and better support this. Some of the information should be able to go straight into the OS code (where it’s simply a better understanding of published standards) and my intention is to keep the closed source part as small as possible to stay within the legal requirements. As above, the intention is to always retain the OS version of this based on the existing codebase and if someone wants to improve that based on information that may be made publicly available, then that is always an option in exactly the same way it is now.
I have not asked for money to do this - someone asked how much it would cost and I answered. Clearly recouping some of my costs would be very nice, and I certainly appreciate the donations. If I’m somehow breaking OH rules then I apologise, and I will make this available outside of the direct OH channels.