Guys, Please be careful with the wording that you are throwing out. Open Development and Open Source are very different things. Closed Development and Closed Source are also very different things.
The Apple iPhone is semi-Closed Development, but Closed Source. Windows is Open Development, Closed Source. Programming against the D-STAR serial port is Open Development. Whether it is Open Source or closed Source depends on the application developer. D-STAR is not Open Source. D-STAR isn't a program, therefore it CAN NOT BE OPEN SOURCE. Source means that there is programming. The D-STAR protocol isn't a program. D-STAR is OPEN PROTOCOL. The Icom D-STAR Gateway Software is CLOSED SOURCE. But that's only the Icom G2 Software. DPlus is Closed Source. It's developer thought about making it Open Source, but after consulting with many of the players, decided to keep it Closed Source. D-RATS, I believe, is Open Source Just because step-by-step instructions don't exist for hams who don't know what GMSK is, to make a D-STAR radio, doesn't mean that it is closed. That just means no one has decided to take the time and effort to create it. If you keep propagating the idea that D-STAR is closed, then you deter people from getting into it, and more importantly developing new applications for it. D-STAR Development is open. There are a number of access methods and protocols that are available for creating applications for D-STAR. There basically is only one part of D-STAR that is closed, and most all of it has been reversed engineered, which means development is possible and has been done. Compare this to the iPhone where you have to sign all sorts of agreements and then rely on the manufacturer to distribute your program. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of john_ke5c Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Honest questions ..... > I don't think Nate dislikes D-Star. I certainly don't, but I do wish that > the folks who have produced compatible stuff for it, while promising that it > would be open source, would follow through on their promises - or at least > release documentation so other amateurs can do so. Agree with Nate and Jay; please just call a spade a spade (a bloody shovel). Proprietary D-Star add-ons, to sell to fellow hams to make a few bucks, are welcome, just don't describe them open projects and claim your motivation is to advance the hobby unless you provide the URL to the source (or give the products away for free). And Ed, that such exist do not make D-Star per se an open environment. A more correct descriptor might be a multi-source environment. 73--John
