To Richard and Howard and the other gentleman who responded: Firstly, Howard, I don't want to sound patronizing but I accept your apology. I understand your response and appreciate the context in which it was given. But, seriously, the radios were NOT to be used in part 90 service but rather part 97 in which the FCC graciously allows us to experiment within a broader scope of limitations than the commercial setrivce.
Also Richard, I do lament the predicament you found yourself in. My experience with RB here has been cordial. I asked some questions about a very tenative subject -- the format and content of HT600/MT1000 code plugs -- and recieved a wealth of informaton in return. I was also informally invited to "publish" the results on RB subject to the editor's approval. I could have been slammed harshly because perhaps the Moto lawyers would understandably like to squelch the propagation of such data. (Parenthetically, being a software developer, I am familiar with intellectual property laws and, while illegally copying and distributing of software or giving away company secrets is not permitted, one *can* reverse engineer a product if one is extemely careful and has no direct knowledge of the internals. This was done many years ago when Dr DOS was created as a mimic of MS-DOS. Now, I am sure that one cannot play fast and loose with this, but it's less prone to scrutiny than blatant piracy. Hence, anything I do offer to RB will pass the smell test of the site owner and I will abide is decision.) Like your situation, I wanted to see how much I could push the envelope on these older radios and do not have the wealth of commercial two-way skills that many here have. I suspect that I would find out what Howard advised me of right enough, but the best way to learn is to "bust your knuckles" trying to do something. In any event, Howard, I do appreciate your input and would like to take the opportunity some time to bounce my results off you if you do not mind. Respectfully, Bill, k6whp --- In [email protected], "The Marlins" <marl...@...> wrote: > > ..but the radio police sure had their say..
