| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 18.12.03 09:41l 194 Lines 8081 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2504-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Dec 15, 4/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE3XSR<OK0PBX<OK0PRG<OK0NAG<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<
ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 031218/0721Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:14875 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2504-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: David L Norris <kg9ae@webaugur.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:03:25 -0500
X-Message-Number: 23
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 17:29, Scott Miller wrote:
>But for the tracker firmware and its associated schematics and PCB layouts,
>I'd like to add an additional restriction against commercial, for-profit
>use.
Open Source forbids such restrictions:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
--
David Norris, ARS: KG9AE
http://www.webaugur.com/dave/kg9ae/
ICQ - 412039
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Some great DX on APRS right now IN->FL!!
From: Richard Garcia <k4gps@bellsouth.net>
Date: 15 Dec 2003 20:31:11 -0500
X-Message-Number: 24
OK so maybe I am seeing him over a digi but this is still way cool for
what it is worth.
KB9LTH-10 in Palestine IN at 20:10 was seen in West Palm Beach Florida
and probably down into Broward County via 2 digi's KC4OUA and AA4QI-1.
While coming home at 19:00 today I heard some UHF activity on my
repeater frequency which is normally VERY clear even during DX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [aprs-fl] Some great DX on APRS right now IN->FL!!
From: Richard Garcia <k4gps@bellsouth.net>
Date: 15 Dec 2003 20:42:04 -0500
X-Message-Number: 25
OK bands are good but I take the good DX portion of the message back.
Someone well out of our area is acting as a Igate and sending out
position reports for stations all over the country but having come over
the internet.
Hopefully someone in the area where these are coming from will see the
message and look into it, the only reason we notice it is because the
bands are open and we are getting about 400+ mile VHF propagation.
Maybe someone will let the individual know that sending regular
positions of stations (and fixed stations for that matter!) is not an
accepted practice from the internet to RF.
Rich
K4GPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: d7a GPS Cable?
From: Frank - KG6JVE <kg6jve@pasadena.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:46:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 26
I ordered them for next day delivery. They arrived as promised and I was
able to use my d7a with the GPS on a business trip.
Of course it would be less expensive if I made them myself. I didn't have
time to wait.
Frank
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stephen H. Smith wrote:
>I really didn't think anyone would find it commercially viable to make
>such an application-specific cable, given that:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:39:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 27
Well said.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:34:08 -0600, Georgette Sampson wrote:
>Personally, I don't think someone who is designing an 2FSK non-FEC
>"open source" gadget should waste time on trying to enforce
>legitimate "closed" uses of the product. Maybe if it used a modern
>modem technology that might interest commercial users. What you
>might say, is that no software can be called OpenTracker unless it
>performs a minimum set of features. That is, you want people to use
>your design and abandon the other "closed" system you are trying to
>improve on. The non-profit "closed" amendment to the "open" source
>project would stifle adoption.
>
>If you remember, the Wright brothers spent all their time and money
>by hiring lawyers, while others built better airplanes using their
>basic design. People bought Curtis airplanes because they were
>higher performance. You want people to flee the raw ASCII based APRS
>and come to your binary protocol in droves. Who cares if someone
>makes a profit?
>
>Maybe you should rename it Semi-OpenTracker, or ClosedOpenTracker or
>some such??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Open source licensing
From: John Hansen <hansen@fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:28:27 -0500
X-Message-Number: 28
Folks:
To me this is an incredibly interesting and worthwhile discussion. I know
it is a bit off topic for an APRS group, but I'm hoping Stan will let it go
a bit. I'm struggling with the same issue that Scott is (and I suspect
Byon is) with regard to how to market TNC-X in a way that is both fair to
me and will encourage it's adoption and development. Up front, I'll tell
you that after discussions with a couple of people on this list, I'm
leaning toward doing it open source, but I've not made a final decision
yet. Frankly, I know more about programming PIC chips than I know about
licensing options, so if I appear to be daft on the subject of copyright
law, I hope you will forgive the lapse.
It's a good idea, I think, to up front about one's goals. Here are mine:
1. I spent a lot of time (and frankly a lot of money) developing TNC-X. At
a minimum I'd like to recoup the money I spent, and I think it would be
nice if I got compensated to some extent for my time as well. With the
last product I tried to sell, I didn't even recoup the out of pocket costs
... and this could easily happen to you to, if you misjudge the market,
even a little bit. To be fair, other products, notably the Universal QSYer
and the D700 keyboard interface. have been very profitable, mostly because
a lot of units have been sold.
2. I'd like to see the product take off and be used by people and I know
that if I charge a lot it won't be. This may sound dumb, but with every
product I've developed I price it by asking the question: How little can I
charge but still feel not depressed when I'm sitting in my shack kitting up
a new batch or repairing one that was mis-assembled by someone.
A couple of other observations:
1. My worst nightmare is that someone would modify it and then somehow
either suggest that I should support the modified design or that something
I did caused it to fail. I will admit that my worries about this issue
have diminished substantially as I thought about the specific circumstances
under which this could occur and how I could specifically avoid them.
2. I think moving into development from this angle, we all would do well to
forget about broader commercial applications. We simply don't have enough
legal clout that a larger company would have to pay any attention to us.
Even if some commercial company stole a design outright, we don't have the
resources to legally contest it. For example, Software 2000's design was
(as I understand it) pretty much stolen by a foreign group, but they were
reduced to (unsuccessfully) begging hams not to support the folks who had
stolen it. More recently, it appears that Byon's design was also stolen,
but Byon was in no position to legally defend his intellectual property in
court either. If someone steals a design of mine, regardless of what I
wrote in the licensing agreement, it is unlikely that I'm going to defend
it in court.
3. Make no mistake, there are some substantial sums of money involved in
some of these products. Without naming names or naming products, there
have been several of these types of designs that have produced tens of
thousands of dollars in the last decade or so, either for individuals or
organizations. It is quite likely that at least in some cases, the
prospect of profit has resulted in all of us having toys (at reasonable
prices) that we might not otherwise have.
Now Greg said the following: "If you don't want people to sell products
and compete making opentrac devices, the GPL would be a good choice. "
Forgive my ignorance, but why is that? Doesn't GPL let anyone produce this
on the same footing as you produce it (that is, preserving no advantage for
the developer)? I'm not trying to be provocative here, I really don't
understand the argument. Can you explain?
I'd certainly appreciate any comments that any of you might have on this
issue, either publicly or privately.
John W2FS
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
