Re: [time-nuts] Open source
In message cabbxvhujtsd4btdq7dbm88-gfuv9kbesr5_jovaeubvrjnc...@mail.gmail.com, Chris Albertson writes: Many authors ike GPL because they figure I wrote this and I'm giving this away for free, I don't want some other guy to take it, change the title and claim it as his own work and charge money for it. BSD on the other hand allows it The University of Califoornia used BSD because their goal was to get the technology out into the world and allowing someone to make money is a good way to do that. The BSD license does not allow you to claim it is yours, in fact, no license is needed to preserve that right, as the Berne Convention and all copyright laws I know about, protects the creators ideal rights (= the right to be known as the creator) by default. In practice there are a few other wrinkles between GPL and BSD. In particular the GPL code can taint your own code if you get them too close together, so that you can be forced to release your own code as GPL, simply by using a GPL submodule. (This is why some license-fanatics call the GPL a viral license) And one other detail most people overlook, is that the default GPL text gives any users the right to use any later version of the GPL license instead of the one you copypasted. This has only happened once but it had ground-shaking repercussions through out the industry. As for the economy, as an open source author, my experience is that there is more money to be made with the BSD license than with the GPL license, simply because the companies which might be willing to pay, also like the extra freedom of the BSD license. And as was said, there is a ton of other OSS-licenses out there, you can see a sort of a list here: http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html my own contribution to the area, was used on a piece of code I wrote, which during its most popular use-period, protected upwards of 50% of all passwords on the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
On 8 December 2012 01:09, Chris Albertson albertson.ch...@gmail.com wrote: BTW you CAN make as much money as you like with GPL'd software. Just look at all Android phones. They contain Linux and a pile of other GPL'd software. Apple is using BSD Unix in there products. That's an important point, and something the person that wrote the GPSDO software might like to consider. You don't need to be the size of Apple to make money from GPL. Plenty of people earn money from providing support for GPL software. There are numerous consultants for R (statistics package), Apache (web server), Wireshark (network analysis) etc. I've made money by selling support for a GPL program I wrote. http://atlc.sourceforge.net/ with hindsight, I could have probably made more, as a commerical company contacted me, asking if I could license it under the LGPL so they could use it in their closed-source commerical software. I refused. But with hindsight, I could have sold them a license to use it in their closed source application. As a company, if you use GPL software, you are not tied to one vendor. If there is a feature you want, you can eitiher add it yourself, ask the original author to add it, or if need be pay someone else to add it. Dave ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
On 8 December 2012 08:36, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote: And one other detail most people overlook, is that the default GPL text gives any users the right to use any later version of the GPL license instead of the one you copypasted. This has only happened once but it had ground-shaking repercussions through out the industry. I don't agree with that statement. Look at GPL 2 (not the latest version). http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html Section 9 states: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Note the term: *IF* the Program specifies ... My interpretation of the GPL if you specify version 2, and do not specify or any later version, then the code is released under version 2, and can't be used under any later version. This compatibility matrix http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility makes it clear if the code is released under GPL 2, without the or any later version clause, it is incompatible with version 3. And as was said, there is a ton of other OSS-licenses out there, you can see a sort of a list here: http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html Unfortunately, the large number of licenses is a real pain. The Sage mathematics project http://www.sagemath.org/ which aims to create a viable free open source alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica and Matlab, is plagued by the problem of incompatible licenses, Sage contains the source code from around 100 different bits of software and needless to say some are incompatible. In some cases, when consideration was given to including the source of some program X released under the GPL 2, the projects lead (William Stein) or someone else has contacted the original author of X, and asked them if they will re license it under Version 2 or any later version. In other instances, packages were made optional, so people could install them if they wanted, but it would be under a different license. Personally I'm not convined that Sage fully complies with the licenses and I'm not the only Sage developer to think that. But the projects lead is happy. The amount of time spent on the Sage developers mailing list discussing license issues is not insignificant. This is a direct result of various components having different licenses. Dave ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
In message canx10haonf8mauotcr9w8k9wm-ckbgkqqujm6epq5wzrqp5...@mail.gmail.com, David Kirkby writes: On 8 December 2012 08:36, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote: And one other detail most people overlook, is that the default GPL text gives any users the right to use any later version of the GPL license instead of the one you copypasted. This has only happened once but it had ground-shaking repercussions through out the industry. I don't agree with that statement. You underestimate the power of blind copypaste here: The point is not that you _can_ modify the license on this detail, but that most people don't realize that they should, and the default has the ...or later language in it. Unfortunately, the large number of licenses is a real pain. [...] The amount of time spent on the Sage developers mailing list discussing license issues is not insignificant. Yes, license-triage is a major task in many Open Source projects, we have spent oodles of time on it in FreeBSD as well. Personally I'm not convined that Sage fully complies with the licenses and I'm not the only Sage developer to think that. And, short of a trip through a court, there is no way you can be sure. All part of life in FOSS... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
GPL and Open Source are frequently confused technically any code where the source code is available to the customer is open source. As in open for inspection, under terms agreed to in the license. What most people think about when they hear about open source is code released under variants of the GPL which require that code released to the public built with GPL tools be made available for no more than the cost of distribution ie you can charge for the cost of the optical disk and postage but no more. Scott Sent from my iPhone On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nz wrote: My mistake was inferring that my GPSDO software was open source. It's absolutely not. It is proprietary to me and written in AVR assembler. There is no reference anywhere in it to any libraries from any other source. So don't get too excited. You can still see what's inside it for $50, but you need to be able to understand AVR assembler source code. 73, Murray ZL1BPU ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
On 7 December 2012 15:00, Scott McGrath scmcgr...@gmail.com wrote: What most people think about when they hear about open source is code released under variants of the GPL which require that code released to the public built with GPL tools be made available for no more than the cost of distribution ie you can charge for the cost of the optical disk and postage but no more. Scott Whether the source code is open has nothing to do with what the tool chain that might be used. People write open-source code for things like FPGAs which need expensive proprietry tools to load into the FPGA. You can write programs for MATLAB, Mathematica, Labview etc and open-source them. The fact they need pretty expensive software to be of any use is irrelevant. Dave ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
that was my point code is open source means open for inspection by end-user. The tool chain is irrelevant unless it comes from GPL or similar licenses. Back in the mainframe days most code was proprietary but distributed to customer in the form of source code to be compiled by the end user. That code was 'Open Source' e Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:09 PM, David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote: On 7 December 2012 15:00, Scott McGrath scmcgr...@gmail.com wrote: What most people think about when they hear about open source is code released under variants of the GPL which require that code released to the public built with GPL tools be made available for no more than the cost of distribution ie you can charge for the cost of the optical disk and postage but no more. Scott Whether the source code is open has nothing to do with what the tool chain that might be used. People write open-source code for things like FPGAs which need expensive proprietry tools to load into the FPGA. You can write programs for MATLAB, Mathematica, Labview etc and open-source them. The fact they need pretty expensive software to be of any use is irrelevant. Dave ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
On 12/7/2012 4:08 PM, Scott McGrath wrote: that was my point code is open source means open for inspection by end-user. The tool chain is irrelevant unless it comes from GPL or similar licenses. Back in the mainframe days most code was proprietary but distributed to customer in the form of source code to be compiled by the end user. That code was 'Open Source' e Not by the most commonly accepted definition: http://opensource.org/docs/osd ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
Not by the most commonly accepted definition: http://opensource.org/docs/osd The no discrimination clause is interesting. That explains the bizarre white power linux distribution. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
Well the GPL crowd has kind of conflated open source with code licensed under the GPL. And yes I have met Richard Stallman on many occasions. And I'm sure he would also disagree on my definition of open source Heck under those terms code released under the BSD license does not qualify as 'open source'. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com wrote: On 12/7/2012 4:08 PM, Scott McGrath wrote: that was my point code is open source means open for inspection by end-user. The tool chain is irrelevant unless it comes from GPL or similar licenses. Back in the mainframe days most code was proprietary but distributed to customer in the form of source code to be compiled by the end user. That code was 'Open Source' e Not by the most commonly accepted definition: http://opensource.org/docs/osd ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
On 12/7/2012 5:26 PM, Scott McGrath wrote: Well the GPL crowd has kind of conflated open source with code licensed under the GPL. And yes I have met Richard Stallman on many occasions. And I'm sure he would also disagree on my definition of open source You're confusing the two. Stallman promotes Free Software (simply put, libre, not like beer). GPL code is open source code. Open source doesn't have to be GPL. You're certainly free to have your own, unique, definition of open source, but don't expect it to be understood by others. 'There's glory for you!' 'I don't know what you mean by glory,' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' Heck under those terms code released under the BSD license does not qualify as 'open source'. Yes, it does. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause Note that the definition of open source doesn't prohibit the code from being re-distributed under a non-open license, as the BSD allows, and the GPL prohibits. BSD is open source, but the BSD license allows one to modify the code, then sell it commercially and/or keep the code proprietary (i.e. distribute additional terms) - it's that modified code would no longer be considered open source. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source
Yes, GPL is just one of many Open Source license types. Others include 1) GPL (may only be used for other GPL'd projects) 2) BSD style (allows use for any purpose, buy you can't sue the author) 3) Public Domain (totally unrestricted use) 4) Various Creative Commons versions some allow comercial use some don't My advice for anyone writing something new is to use GPL is you ant to keep the code free and BSD if you want to allow free commercial use. Many authors ike GPL because they figure I wrote this and I'm giving this away for free, I don't want some other guy to take it, change the title and claim it as his own work and charge money for it. GPL prevents that. BSD on the other hand allows it The University of Califoornia used BSD because their goal was to get the technology out into the world and allowing someone to make money is a good way to do that. BTW you CAN make as much money as you like with GPL'd software. Just look at all Android phones. They contain Linux and a pile of other GPL'd software. Apple is using BSD Unix in there products. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Scott McGrath scmcgr...@gmail.com wrote: GPL and Open Source are frequently confused technically any code where the source code is available to the customer is open source. As in open for inspection, under terms agreed to in the license. What most people think about when they hear about open source is code released under variants of the GPL which require that code released to the public built with GPL tools be made available for no more than the cost of distribution ie you can charge for the cost of the optical disk and postage but no more. -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
[time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
Keenan, You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and executables. The executables alone are $20. See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm While this design does not use a Kalmann filter, it has pretty good holdover, and you can see how the phase detector, error integrator, filters, PID controller and D-A converter etc are done. The hardware is pretty simple. There is a PC monitoring and control program. 73, Murray ZL1BPU - Original Message - As a lurker, I just want to chime in and say that I for one would love to see an open-source GPSDO implementation. [snip] ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
On 6 December 2012 18:28, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nz wrote: Keenan, You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and executables. The executables alone are $20. See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm Murray , There's a huge difference between open-source and paying $50 to view the code for ones own use. Even if the code was cost just $0.01, but the code was not open to public scrutiny, it detracts from its value. I've no objection to you, or anyone else writing code for proffit - I have done it myself many times. But your code is not open-source, and does not have the advantages that open-source code has - open to public scrutiny, ability to share improvements with the community etc. I can't quite work out why the title is Open source GPSDO when the code is not open-source. BTW, I suspect you reduce potential sales by not accepting Personal checks, bank checks, internet pay services or money orders. Having banknotes wrapped inside a letter posted to you does not appeal to many people now. http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/Index.htm#NOTES Before the days of Paypal, I found posting banknotes was the cheapest way to send small amount of money overseas. I'd generally buy USD from a travel agent in the UK and post them off in an envelope, as the bank costs to get a small amount of money transfered were too high. But it is not to everyones liking. Dave. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
If by OpenSource he means that he used the OpenSource tool chain, and libraries, and then is keeping his source and executables closed, he may be in violation of the GNU licenses. -Chuck Harris David Kirkby wrote: On 6 December 2012 18:28, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nz wrote: Keenan, You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and executables. The executables alone are $20. See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm Murray , There's a huge difference between open-source and paying $50 to view the code for ones own use. Even if the code was cost just $0.01, but the code was not open to public scrutiny, it detracts from its value. I've no objection to you, or anyone else writing code for proffit - I have done it myself many times. But your code is not open-source, and does not have the advantages that open-source code has - open to public scrutiny, ability to share improvements with the community etc. I can't quite work out why the title is Open source GPSDO when the code is not open-source. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
On 6 December 2012 20:33, Chuck Harris cfhar...@erols.com wrote: If by OpenSource he means that he used the OpenSource tool chain, and libraries, and then is keeping his source and executables closed, he may be in violation of the GNU licenses. -Chuck Harris According to the web page http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/Index.htm#NOTES the code is written in Microsoft Quick Basic 3.2 compiler syntax. So it is not an open-source tool chain. I'm not sure what you mean by OpenSource tool chain, but if you are thinking of gcc, then there is a special GCC RUNTIME LIBRARY EXCEPTION. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html so you can use gcc to create closed-source software, despite the fact gcc is a GPL program. As a reader of the gcc mailing lists, it is a fairly common question on there, from people who want to use gcc for closed-source software, but are not sure if it legal to do so. The answer is yes, you can use gcc for commerical closed-source software. Dave David Kirkby wrote: On 6 December 2012 18:28, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nz wrote: Keenan, You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and executables. The executables alone are $20. See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm Murray , There's a huge difference between open-source and paying $50 to view the code for ones own use. Even if the code was cost just $0.01, but the code was not open to public scrutiny, it detracts from its value. I've no objection to you, or anyone else writing code for proffit - I have done it myself many times. But your code is not open-source, and does not have the advantages that open-source code has - open to public scrutiny, ability to share improvements with the community etc. I can't quite work out why the title is Open source GPSDO when the code is not open-source. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
GPL violations are a good thing. That is how the FSF makes money. ;-) http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Cisco-settles-with-FSF-on-GPL-violations/ ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
Hi Many of the vendor tool chains are now (or soon will be) gcc and Eclipse based. It's very common to do closed source code on open source based platforms. Bob -Original Message- From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of David Kirkby Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:56 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO On 6 December 2012 20:33, Chuck Harris cfhar...@erols.com wrote: If by OpenSource he means that he used the OpenSource tool chain, and libraries, and then is keeping his source and executables closed, he may be in violation of the GNU licenses. -Chuck Harris According to the web page http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/Index.htm#NOTES the code is written in Microsoft Quick Basic 3.2 compiler syntax. So it is not an open-source tool chain. I'm not sure what you mean by OpenSource tool chain, but if you are thinking of gcc, then there is a special GCC RUNTIME LIBRARY EXCEPTION. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html so you can use gcc to create closed-source software, despite the fact gcc is a GPL program. As a reader of the gcc mailing lists, it is a fairly common question on there, from people who want to use gcc for closed-source software, but are not sure if it legal to do so. The answer is yes, you can use gcc for commerical closed-source software. Dave David Kirkby wrote: On 6 December 2012 18:28, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nz wrote: Keenan, You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and executables. The executables alone are $20. See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm Murray , There's a huge difference between open-source and paying $50 to view the code for ones own use. Even if the code was cost just $0.01, but the code was not open to public scrutiny, it detracts from its value. I've no objection to you, or anyone else writing code for proffit - I have done it myself many times. But your code is not open-source, and does not have the advantages that open-source code has - open to public scrutiny, ability to share improvements with the community etc. I can't quite work out why the title is Open source GPSDO when the code is not open-source. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
The Open Source tool chain is generally GCC, its libraries, and debuggers. Closed source use of the GCC tool chain is done all the time, but there are numerous gotchas that catch the unwary. Some of the libraries are covered by the Lesser GPL license, and as such are available for that kind of use, others are not. This is why there is a seemingly never ending stream of legal challenges to GPL violators. Which is why I was very careful to say: May be in violation... But since he is using microsloth compilers, and is charging for access to the source and executable code, his project isn't OpenSource in any respect. -Chuck Harris David Kirkby wrote: As a reader of the gcc mailing lists, it is a fairly common question on there, from people who want to use gcc for closed-source software, but are not sure if it legal to do so. The answer is yes, you can use gcc for commerical closed-source software. Dave ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
[time-nuts] Open source
My mistake was inferring that my GPSDO software was open source. It's absolutely not. It is proprietary to me and written in AVR assembler. There is no reference anywhere in it to any libraries from any other source. So don't get too excited. You can still see what's inside it for $50, but you need to be able to understand AVR assembler source code. 73, Murray ZL1BPU ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
Re: [time-nuts] Open source GPSDO
We need a real, Open Source GPSDO that uses an open source tool chain. Cost is not the issue it is the ability to modify and redistribute the modified copy that is what's needed. On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Murray Greenman denw...@orcon.net.nzwrote: Keenan, You can see my GPSDO source code for a mere $50. It comes with manual and executables. The executables alone are $20. See http://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/**MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htmhttp://www.qsl.net/zl1bpu/MICRO/SIMPLE/SimpleGPS.htm While this design does not use a Kalmann filter, it has pretty good holdover, and you can see how the phase detector, error integrator, filters, PID controller and D-A converter etc are done. The hardware is pretty simple. There is a PC monitoring and control program. 73, Murray ZL1BPU - Original Message - As a lurker, I just want to chime in and say that I for one would love to see an open-source GPSDO implementation. [snip] __**_ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/** mailman/listinfo/time-nutshttps://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there. -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California ___ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
