Hi Nate. Another example is the DX Cluster. A Ham made his money
selling the software with the buyer's callsign inbedded into the binary.
That way no sharing software. Well after a few years it stopped selling so
he announced it will no longer be supported. But no source code. Nothing.
Happy to say France came up and re-wrote the DX Cluster code for
both DOS and Linux. Germany came up with Clix for Linux. But again the
source code is not available from France. Just a binary. Wonder what will
happen when F6FBB dies or looses interest?
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Nate Bargmann wrote:
} Bob Nielsen wrote:
} >
} > The problem here is that both PACTOR-II and CLOVER are proprietary
} > protocols. I guess after using Linux for nearly five years I have a
} > real problem with that (also APRS).
}
} Not only do I have *zero* use for proprietary protocols on ham radio, I
} am also finding it much harder to justify the existence of proprietary
} software in ham radio.
}
} Remember a couple months back when it was announced that some pirate had
} cracked the registration code on software written by Brian Beezley,
} K6STI? An editorial in CQ whailed of the loss of this program and
} others written by K6STI to the ham community. Now, I'm not going to say
} this wasn't nice software, nor will I say it was useless, I never used
} any of his programs. But! What did K6STI plan to do with the source
} code if he died, or lost interest in maintaining it or developing it? I
} don't know. What about any ham interested in doing the calculations and
} other things his software did or wishing to understand the engineering
} principles it embodied? There certainly was no way any of us could
} learn from his technique if we wanted to as it's hidden behind the
} binary code. This is an unfortunate side effect of proprietary software
} applied to ham radio. One person gains financially and the rest of us
} are prevented from learning from his skills. The height of selfishness
} indeed!
}
} Now, since K6STI has made the decision to no longer support his code
} and, from what I've read, intends to "deprive" ham radio of the
} "benefit" of his code since someone cracked his protection thus
} depriving him of income, then I think he should GPL his code. Why not?
} He's decided he's not going to make any more money anyway selling the
} software in question. Perhaps he believes all hams are pirates and
} wishes to punish the entire community, or (more likely) is not aware of
} the GPL.
}
} It seems to me the Micrso~1 world is geared so that anyone with a good
} idea must purchase proprietary development tools and documentation and
} then any software produced must be sold and licensed like Windows in
} order to recoup one's initial expense of development. I would guess no
} author of ham software is ever adequately compensated for their time due
} to low volume sales.
}
} What a contrast that world is from Linux and other Free Software
} projects where openess and sharing are the order of the day. I like it
} here...I think I'll stay! :-)
}
} 73, de Nate >>
}
} P.S. I realize I am preaching to the choir here, but I wanted to get
} this off my chest and into the archives for those that come later
} wanting to understand why the Free world is much healthier for ham radio
} than the proprietary one.
}
} --
}
} Packet | N0NB @ WF0A.#SCKS.KS.USA.NOAM | "FAILURE IS NOT
} Internet | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AN OPTION!
} Location | Valley Center, Kansas USA EM17hs | It's bundled
} Visit my Linux + Ham Radio pages | with the soft-
} http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~ka0rny/ | ware..."
}
Best wishes
- Karl F. Larsen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (505) 524-3303 -
