Re: DVAP and the DVRPTR boards
Comments in line.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Kristoff Bonne <kristoff@...> wrote:
This is good to know. So running 'headless' should be possible in real time?
The fact that any intellectual property is in your radio, means the patent/copyright holder retains rights and generally extracts some licensing fee, this is not exclusive to the vocoder. I think IP law has gone too far myself, but that's a political, not a technological issue.
Documentation is a vendor's choice.
I think I ran across a Russian chip manufacturer who had licensed the rights to manufacture AMBE chips. I think the situation is that DVSI makes their chips at a competitive price (TI OEM with their algorithm) that would be difficult for another manufacturer to beat. DVSI does sell source licenses, but perhaps the business case just isn't there for self manufacture when the chip can be obtained cheaply.
This is no different than licensing ARM intellectual property for self manufacture, except there is a business case for manufacturers to do so, since they often extend it with "system on a chip" components like GPU, SATA, USB, GPIO, etc. of their own intellectual property (or licensed from other 3rd parties).
ARM, Intel, AMD, Power Pc, ... are all somebody's proprietary intellectual property. Pragmatically, you are only going to run Linux on a system with proprietary technology.
Agreed. However, the open source equivalents (Unix -> Linux, MicroSoft Office -> Open Office, ...) all either were non-infringing on the IP of the proprietary system or a favorable license was created. It's a matter of what is patented, many of these open source projects have 'work a like' functionality but are not exact replicas. In the case of Linux vs Unix, they were definitely different, then through an open standard (e.g. Posix) they became compatible.
It is not as cut and dry as we would like to believe - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies
This is the crux of the matter, you (and others) do not like the specification even though it is open. That's OK, but state it that way, don't make inaccurate claims about D-STAR. (Not necessarily you personally, but those making the arguments.) I think many things could be improved or extended, but there is no mechanism to change the specification or modify existing firmware in radios adapted to that specification. The former is a failing of the JARL, the later of manufacturers who still have the 'proprietary is best' mentality.
True, except modulation. The specification allows for GMSK, 4FSK, and QPSK.
The pure-data pipe can be done, at any data rate, using the 'digital data' protocol (Ethernet encapsulation). The failure of radios to do that is a failure of the manufacturer(s). [The UDR56k-4 will allow this.]
Because it wasn't considered? The creation of the specification was controlled by JARL, you would need to check with them. It was created under a grant from the Japanese government with a secondary requirement to create an ISDN level, mobile radio data service (ala ID-1 DD mode).
Codec-2 is not constrained that way, but I haven't seen the creation of a type of open standards body to write a specification yet? D-STAR is well established and growing. It is by far the leading digital amateur radio voice system and any new system has a lot of ground to make up, at least in the VHF+ infrastructure space.
By all means create a better system, but D-STAR is set and many of the changes people propose would break existing systems. Many groups are dependent on those systems and won't switch for purely 'open systems' arguments.
D-STAR / AMBE do nothing to prevent individual freedom of choice. Nobody is requiring the use of D-STAR or AMBE -- for those that do, it is often a pragmatic choice.
The 'problem' is manufactured, as some have expectations outside of what D-STAR offers. They are free to use something different, but should not expect others to follow purely on ideological arguments.
My position is that those who make the argument that Amateur Radio requires "open source" are being unrealistic. Should intellectual and proprietary components be banned, amateur radio would cease to exist.
I think your work and that of the Codec-2 folks is wonderful and I support it -- however, that doesn't mean I can't also support D-STAR.
I was responding to ill informed arguments and logical inconsistencies of arguments. Certainly there are legitimate arguments why an individual might choose not to adopt any technology, including D-STAR or Codec-2 but let's be accurate about the technical features.