Hamvention booth photos

[Bruce Perens]

These are photos of the FreeDV booth. They are shot before Hamvention
opens for the day. Some of the other booth staff have photos after the
show opening.

http://files.freedv.org/photos/2013/hamvention/

Thanks

Bruce

[VK2JI - Ed Durrant]

Hi Bruce,

All looks very good - can you name any of the people in the photos -
just out of interest.

Thanks & 73 Ed VK2JI.

[Robert McGwier]

I had dozens come tell me of your talk. I'm so sorry I missed it.

73's

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "digitalvoice" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to digitalvoice+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to digita...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/digitalvoice?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[jdow]

Bruce, your sign reminds me of a California license plate I saw, local to
my home at the time, exactly once. The DMV must have been clued in and
pulled the license back. It was IOOOIOI. I completely lost it once I quit
trying to make an acronym out of it. (And if you live long enough you get
to spend a whole year of IOOOIOI.)

{o.o} Joanne/W6MKU

[David Rowe]

Hi Bruce,

Great photos and a great booth. Thanks to you and the other people
manning the booth for your fine efforts. It's great to see our efforts
come together to reach this milestone.

When you recover I'd love to hear about you thoughts on feedback from
people, so we can celebrate what we have achieved and work out next
steps.

Cheers,

David

[Steve]

I used to work in a cubicle number 1001, and every year the inventory clerk would ask what my cube number was, and I'd say "9"...

[Bruce Perens]

Will do. I talked with FlexRadio and worked out how they could go
forward with integrating the codec and modem while respecting the Open
Source nature and making it user reloadable. I will keep in touch with
them as this happens. Made connection with Ten-Tec and will make
connection with Elecraft.

Thanks

Bruce

[VK2JI - Ed Durrant]

As suggested by others, I'd like to see a commercially made external box
that can be used with any SSB rig. Integration into new models would be
ideal however if that were the only option that would mean buying a new
rig to get the capability and that might put many people off in a
similar way to D-Star.

73 Ed.

[Walter Holmes]

FreeDV Dongle would be nice in a perfect world... :)

Would be great to have FreeDV in the mobile..

Walter/K5WH

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"digitalvoice" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

email to digitalvoice...@googlegroups.com.

[Tony Langdon]

On 20/05/13 7:22 AM, VK2JI - Ed Durrant wrote:
> As suggested by others, I'd like to see a commercially made external
> box that can be used with any SSB rig. Integration into new models
> would be ideal however if that were the only option that would mean
> buying a new rig to get the capability and that might put many people
> off in a similar way to D-Star.

I'd certainly be interested in an add-on FreeDV unit for my radios,
especially for mobile use.

--
73 de Tony VK3JED
http://vkradio.com

[Matthew Pitts]

I agree, but it seems that even when you tell people that there are options beside the "take it out of the box and turn it on" one that they know of, it goes straight over their heads. It's almost as if they dread having to do a little bit of assembly beyond putting the antenna and battery on an HT or connecting power and antenna to a mobile.

Matthew Pitts

N8OHU

---

From: VK2JI - Ed Durrant <edv...@gmail.com>
To: digita...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:22 PM

Subject: Re: [digitalvoice] Hamvention booth photos

[VK2JI - Ed Durrant]

Hi Matthew,

  Nice to have both options - buy a rig with FreeDV built in when you are ready to buy a new rig, or "retro fit" using a simple external box if you wish to add to an existing rig.

  I know there are those on this list who could build such a box with a Pi or similar in it - but I think there will be a big market for a manufactured unit, to simply plug in.

73  Ed VK2JI.

--

[Ronny Julian]

I bet Robin would have no issue on that name but some others might. 

s far as putting a "box" together does this run on Android yet?  Plenty of cheap "boxes" on eBay running ICS

[Jasmine Strong]

Buy yourself a Cubieboard.  Can (very easily!) run most flavours of ARM Linux, ships with ICS in flash.  $50.  About five times faster than a RasPi.

-J.

[jdow]

What do you use as a tuning indicator?

Where is the profit I could make if I built such a box and sold it? The
GPL contaminates my purpose built hardware design. Poof, I've worked for
months and receive no money to pay for even the electricity spend while
designing it let alone materials spent, rent I spent, food I ate, and
other such not so trivial issues of that ilk.

{^_^} Joanne/W6MKU

On 2013/05/19 18:10, VK2JI - Ed Durrant wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Nice to have both options - buy a rig with FreeDV built in when you are ready
> to buy a new rig, or "retro fit" using a simple external box if you wish to add
> to an existing rig.
>
> I know there are those on this list who could build such a box with a Pi or
> similar in it - but I think there will be a big market for a manufactured unit,
> to simply plug in.
>
> 73 Ed VK2JI.
>
> On 20/05/13 09:32, Matthew Pitts wrote:
>> I agree, but it seems that even when you tell people that there are options
>> beside the "take it out of the box and turn it on" one that they know of, it
>> goes straight over their heads. It's almost as if they dread having to do a
>> little bit of assembly beyond putting the antenna and battery on an HT or
>> connecting power and antenna to a mobile.
>>
>> Matthew Pitts
>> N8OHU
>>

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* VK2JI - Ed Durrant <edv...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* digita...@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:22 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [digitalvoice] Hamvention booth photos

[aa777888]

How does the GPL "contaminate <your> purpose built hardware design"?

Design, build and sell your hardware at a profit. Just like any other computing device which runs GPL software. Provide the software, modified for your hardware, under the GPL. If anyone wants to modify your software work or use your version or a derivative version on their own hardware design then, sure, that's allowed by the GPL. But you still make a profit on your hardware. Again, just like any other computing device running GPL software. Like my very expensive Dell laptop.

The business plan relies on enough "plug & play" type hams wanting to buy it, of course. I bet you can easily beat the $650 price point for an ARD9800 and still make some money. However be careful when you price out the cost of the touch labor for assembly, it'll eat your profit for lunch if you hit it big and have to hire out assembly services. 

As for a tuning indicator, simply tap into the data used to drive the frequency offset display and have it drive a DAC into an LED or LCD bar/dot display in dot mode.

[Bruce Perens]

Joanne,

You only think the GPL "contaminates" your purpose-build hardware design because you have been listening to the most offensive sort of propaganda. The GPL is a software license. How could it possibly "contaminate" something that isn't even software?

Your use of the word "contaminate" is offensive. The software is the work of volutneers who just want to help Amateur Radio, and you should not treat it as if they are attempting to give you a venerial disease. If the GPL is incompatible with what you are doing, please just take that as their notice that you are not to use the software in that context. Nobody compels you to use it.

Anyway, the licensing is not all GPL. While the FreeDV application is under the GPL, the Codec and Modem are under LGPL and can be linked with any proprietary software within the terms of the license. This is the case because we actually have an intellectual property plan that facilitates hardware manufacturers.

We also have a set of guidelines for hardware integration which you can find at the bottom of the front page at freedv.org

And I am an intellectual property specialist, if you want information from the horses mouth instead of the other end of the horse.

Bruce

jdow <jd...@earthlink.net> wrote:

*From:* VK2JI - Ed Durrant <edv...@gmail.com>
*To:* digita...@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:22 PM
*Subject:* Re: [digitalvoice] Hamvention booth photos

As suggested by others, I'd like to
  see a
commercially made external box
that can be used with any SSB rig. Integration into new models would be
ideal however if that were the only option that would mean buying a new
rig to get the capability and that might put many people off in a
similar way to D-Star.

73  Ed.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "digitalvoice" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to digitalvoice...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to digita...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/digitalvoice?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Stuart Longland]

On 19/05/13 22:49, jdow wrote:
> Bruce, your sign reminds me of a California license plate I saw, local to
> my home at the time, exactly once. The DMV must have been clued in and
> pulled the license back. It was IOOOIOI.

Maybe they saw this:
http://www.xkcd.com/1105/
--
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

[Stuart Longland]

On 21/05/13 03:35, aa777888 wrote:
> As for a tuning indicator, simply tap into the data used to drive the
> frequency offset display and have it drive a DAC into an LED or LCD
> bar/dot display in dot mode.

I was thinking three LEDs. "Too Low", "Too High" and "Frequency Locked".

The other trick might be an audible tuning system... attenuate the input
signal slightly, and superimpose a tone right where the BPSK carrier
exists... then the person can learn to tune by ear.

[jdow]

I replied to your private email.

Personally I'd only work with BSD, MIT, or Apache-like licenses for a
product I intended to pay for itself and provide some sandwich money.
That "contaminate" concept is right from quotes of GPL leadership
speaking about GPLv2. I am not sure it is possible to have a project
mixed license GPLv2 and LGPL. GPL and LGPL might work.

There is a distinction made about software designed around GPLed code
and software designed for general purposes that has added capability
to link to GPLed code or that runs on a GPL (not GPLv2) OS.

For a small project even the threat of a lawsuit can shut it down. In
the US that tactic is deployed with depressing and repressing frequency.

{o.o}

On 2013/05/20 15:51, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Joanne,
>
> You only think the GPL "contaminates" your purpose-build hardware design because
> you have been listening to the most offensive sort of propaganda. The GPL is a
> software license. How could it possibly "contaminate" something that isn't even
> software?
>
> Your use of the word "contaminate" is offensive. The software is the work of
> volutneers who just want to help Amateur Radio, and you should not treat it as
> if they are attempting to give you a venerial disease. If the GPL is
> incompatible with what you are doing, please just take that as their notice that
> you are not to use the software in that context. Nobody compels you to use it.
>
> Anyway, the licensing is not all GPL. While the FreeDV application is under the
> GPL, the Codec and Modem are under LGPL and can be linked with any proprietary
> software within the terms of the license. This is the case because we actually
> have an intellectual property plan that facilitates hardware manufacturers.
>
> We also have a set of guidelines for hardware integration which you can find at

> the bottom of the front page at freedv.org <http://freedv.org>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> *From:* VK2JI - Ed Durrant <edv...@gmail.com>
> *To:* digita...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [digitalvoice] Hamvention booth photos
>
> As suggested by others, I'd like to see a commercially made external box
> that can be used with any SSB rig. Integration into new models would be
> ideal however if that were the only option that would mean buying a new
> rig to get the capability and that might put many people off in a
> similar way to D-Star.
>
> 73 Ed.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "digitalvoice" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to digitalvoice...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to digita...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/digitalvoice?hl=en-US.

> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[jdow]

On 2013/05/20 17:30, Stuart Longland wrote:
> On 19/05/13 22:49, jdow wrote:
>> Bruce, your sign reminds me of a California license plate I saw, local to
>> my home at the time, exactly once. The DMV must have been clued in and
>> pulled the license back. It was IOOOIOI.
>
> Maybe they saw this:
> http://www.xkcd.com/1105/

It was within a very short commute distance of just a whole lot of rather
geeky companies such as Hughes, Aerospace Corp, USAF Space Division, TRW,
and others. The translation was obvious. The real laugh was getting it
past the bluenoses in the DMV offices in Sack-o-tomatoes. (Sacramento)
Those bluenoses are what kept me from the obvious translation trying to
make a benign acronym for it before I translated it into 0x45.

{^_^} <- special giggle this year I am 0x45.

[Bruce Perens]

On 5/20/2013 8:49 PM, jdow wrote:
>
>
> Personally I'd only work with BSD, MIT, or Apache-like licenses for a
> product I intended to pay for itself and provide some sandwich money.

The problem with this is that your competitors (for theory's sake say
MFJ) can take your BSD, MIT, or Apache code and put it in their devices
with their own improvements, and give you nothing in return. GPL and to
a lesser extent LGPL protect from that. IMO the people who are telling
you that you don't need your protection are large companies that would
like to freeload without returning anything to the folks who wrote the
code they use. Essentially, it makes people who contribute code with
BSD, Apache, and MIT licenses the unpaid employees of companies like
IBM. There are times when you really do want IBM or MFJ to be able to
use your code as a "gift" rather than "sharing with rules", but you
should arrive at that by a license purpose analysis rather than going in
to it blindly as so many do.

People who say GPL is business hostile are not considering it from the
perspective of the software creator. GPL is, for the creator, more
business friendly because it allows dual-licensing as an income stream.
BSD, Apache, and MIT are always a gift and no dual-licensing is possible.

> That "contaminate" concept is right from quotes of GPL leadership

Google doesn't come up with any case of Richard Stallman using it. We
don't say "viral" either. It seems to me unlikely that RMS would use
pejorative language regarding his own license.

> For a small project even the threat of a lawsuit can shut it down.

Don't think that BSD, MIT, or Apache protect you from lawsuits. I am
expert witness on a case involving them and have written testimony
regarding how those licenses have been violated in a manner infringing
of copyright. Due diligence, in reading the licenses and making sure to
do what they say, protects you from lawsuits.

> In the US that tactic is deployed with depressing and repressing
> frequency.

As it happens the defendants are usually infringing Busybox, which I
created, although the suit is brought by later developers and I am not
represented. However, I get involved because I help the defendants to
cure their infringements. In all cases I know of there was a complete
failure of due diligence. If anyone read the license at all, nobody
acted upon it. BSD, MIT, and Apache would have had the same problem,
because their attribution requirement would have been violated, and
probably other terms.

Bruce

[Marciniak, Ed]

So, what about the idea of licensing some headers or other specfic files that explicitly spell out binary structure under one license and specific code under another license?



The idea is to make part of a system open source to foster community development, and another part just closed enough to leave the incentive of profit to develop hardware and investing in tooling to make it, yet leave someone free to implement "compatible" hardware by adhering to a "standard" without infringing.



PowerSDR source happens to be available, but they retain the rights. Last time I looked, the implementations of non Flex Radio hardware effectively emulated an SDR-1000 or replaced the sdr1000.dll with their own which is possibly less than ideal. Lacking a license model in which their software is sold stand-alone, I have to commend them for having been as open as they are.



The ideal logical conclusion would be several high quality free (or commercial) packages that happen to be available and "just work" with several open (or commercial) sets of radio hardware with different features and capabilities.







73,



Ed

NB0M

________________________________
From: digita...@googlegroups.com [digita...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Bruce Perens [br...@perens.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:51 PM
To: digita...@googlegroups.com; jd...@earthlink.net
Subject: [digitalvoice] GPL "contamination" nonsense.

Joanne,

You only think the GPL "contaminates" your purpose-build hardware design because you have been listening to the most offensive sort of propaganda. The GPL is a software license. How could it possibly "contaminate" something that isn't even software?

Your use of the word "contaminate" is offensive. The software is the work of volutneers who just want to help Amateur Radio, and you should not treat it as if they are attempting to give you a venerial disease. If the GPL is incompatible with what you are doing, please just take that as their notice that you are not to use the software in that context. Nobody compels you to use it.

Anyway, the licensing is not all GPL. While the FreeDV application is under the GPL, the Codec and Modem are under LGPL and can be linked with any proprietary software within the terms of the license. This is the case because we actually have an intellectual property plan that facilitates hardware manufacturers.

We also have a set of guidelines for hardware integration which you can find at the bottom of the front page at freedv.org<http://freedv.org>

[Bruce Perens]

On 5/21/2013 3:43 PM, Marciniak, Ed wrote:
> So, what about the idea of licensing some headers or other specfic files that explicitly spell out binary structure under one license and specific code under another license?
>
>
>
> The idea is to make part of a system open source to foster community development, and another part just closed enough to leave the incentive of profit to develop hardware and investing in tooling to make it, yet leave someone free to implement "compatible" hardware by adhering to a "standard" without infringing.
>
>

It's not really applicable to what we do, since the codec and modem, the
hardest parts, are already written and the licensing allows anyone to
use them in a hardware product. The simple fact that they get to use
those without a royalty is a pretty big benefit to any manufacturer.
They had to pay for that sort of feature up to now.

Really, I am not seeing that anyone needs an incentive to integrate this
product. The manufacturers I spoke with were quite serious in their
interest. Joanne's argument ptherwise was based in a misunderstanding of
intellectual property.

Thanks

Bruce

[jdow]

The header file copyright issue is unsettled. On the one hand you cannot
copyright a telephone book, in the US. But you can copyright specific code.
That suggests that the ".h" file is not copyrightable while the ".c" or
".cpp" or ".cs" or other actual code files are copyrightable. But that's
only suggesting. I don't care to be the pioneer to find herself in court
defending that position.

The expression of a generic interface is in that fuzzy soace between a
.h file and a .c file. Of course, if you design to an API you are not
copying the words in the API document. Therefore you should be in the
clear. I'm not sure that is a settled issue in the US.

That is why I tend to stick to Windows source code in one of the visual
studio implementations and make all my own code for the part that is
not adapted from sources Microsoft permits adapting for closed source
programs. That gets me out from under the copyright issue. But it still
leaves the patent issue. And the software patent scene in the US is
patently ridiculous. (That was a dirty pun but somebody had to do it.)
Allowing mathematics to be patented is a really stupid proposition. (It
is even worse when somebody patents a part of your personal genome for
whatever reason. Those people should be used as test subjects for very
experimental medications, IMAO. But patenting a specific treatment that
uses a piece of a person's genome as part of the process for discovering
a new treatment is reasonable. There's invention involved there.)

But then this is not the place for patent and copyright screeds. I simply
intended to note that selecting the wrong copyright can lead to quite
unintended pain later on - even if you are perfectly legal in your use.
(Not directly related but pertinent to US legal practice consider the
Prenda lawsuit which actually got raw enough a judge finally did the
right thing.)

{^_^} Joanne/W6MKU

[Bruce Perens]

On 5/21/2013 5:13 PM, jdow wrote:

The header file copyright issue is unsettled. On the one hand you cannot
copyright a telephone book, in the US. But you can copyright specific code.
That suggests that the ".h" file is not copyrightable while the ".c" or
".cpp" or ".cs" or other actual code files are copyrightable.

This is not really the case. Certainly you can write copyrightable elements into .h files and there are many parts of .c files that are not copyrightable. Rather than .c and .h files, you can not copyright functional elements, and you can copyright expressive ones.

The fundamental law that this comes from is 17 USC 102(b):

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

This is the U.S. version, but other countries have similar things. Some of these things can be patented rather than copyrighted.

In computer law, the guiding interpretation of this is a case called Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, which you can read about in Wikipedia. You can also find the judge's full finding online.

The copyrightable part of anything is the part in which a human being exercises some sort of creativity, an "act of authorship". We refer to that as an expressive element. The opposite is functional, something that can only be done one way because of external factors like the laws of nature, the names of people in your town, or the need to be compatible with some pre-existing thing like a computer program.

So, if the arrangement of the facts in the phone book was unique, that arrangement might be considered expressive, but if it's just an alphabetized list of facts, there is no expressive element there. The names and phone numbers themselves are not the result of an act of authorship, and thus they can not be copyrighted. This also means that ham callbooks are not copyrightable, no matter how much their manufacturers dispute that. Indeed, anything that is a collection of facts without any unique arrangement would not be copyrightable.

It's also the case that function definitions and their return values and data structures are not copyrightable. Whether they are in .c files or .h files or Java classes. But the bodies of inline functions in .h files might well be copyrightable. Within .c files, the function bodies are not copyrightable and some - not all - of the code within those bodies is.

So, to apply this to Codec2, things that are dependent on the organization of the human vocal system may not be copyrightable, while our means of compressing them would be. APIs might not be copyrightable while other code would be.

I recently worked for Google's defense in Oracle v. Google, which included the question of whether the Java API was copyrightable. We showed that it was not. That may go to the Supreme Court, but I think the lower court finding will stand if it does so. This is actually pretty well understood law and Oracle's challenge of it never had much chance.

    Bruce

[jdow]

On 2013/05/21 17:52, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 5:13 PM, jdow wrote:

> I recently worked for Google's defense in /Oracle v. Google,/ which included the

> question of whether the Java API was copyrightable. We showed that it was not.
> That may go to the Supreme Court, but I think the lower court finding will stand
> if it does so. This is actually pretty well understood law and Oracle's
> challenge of it never had much chance.

That certainly did not stop Oracle from trying to cost Google a potload
of money. Google had the pockets to afford a defense. Would a small
start-up? It's like the old saw that observes you can be right and dead
at the same time, dead right.

{o.o}

[Jasmine Strong]

On 21 May 2013, at 18:14, jdow <jd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> That certainly did not stop Oracle from trying to cost Google a potload
> of money. Google had the pockets to afford a defense. Would a small
> start-up? It's like the old saw that observes you can be right and dead
> at the same time, dead right.

And if you're working with the GPL, Apache license, or whatever, and someone tries to bulldoze you with tactical lawyering, the FSF, EFF, etc. has your back.

-J.

[Bruce Perens]

On 5/21/2013 6:14 PM, jdow wrote:

That certainly did not stop Oracle from trying to cost Google a potload
of money. Google had the pockets to afford a defense. Would a small
start-up?

This same argument applies to sexual harassment cases, injury liability, etc. If you can't afford to go to court and you are not the sort of entity that would attract pro-bono services, you can not get justice in civil court whatever the topic is. This is one of the worse things about the U.S. But it is not a good reason to avoid the GPL.

The people who bring suits regarding the GPL forgive past infringement in exchange for present compliance, and they don't want your money. I have helped several customers settle with them for only the service of verifying their compliance, billed at a very low rate. The last time, the plaintiff lost interest in the case as soon as it was clear that my customer meant to comply, and went on to worse offenders.

If you are a non-profit project, you can have pro-bono services. For example, my expert witness work in Jacobsen v. Katzer was rendered for no charge, as was the work of the attorneys.

    Bruce

[Rafael Diniz]

Bruce,
Thanks a lot for your explanations.
They are all very usefull in my work with Digital Radio in Brazil. A lot of
people just does not get the difference between DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) and
HD Radio, Opus and AAC, and so on.
Do we have a FAQ section about this topic?

You are a great icon and activist reference for me and following you working is
amazing.


Best regards,
Rafael Diniz

> example, my expert witness work in /Jacobsen v. Katzer /was rendered for

> no charge, as was the work of the attorneys.
>
> Bruce
>