Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] Re: D-STAR video on YouTube

Scott Miller scott at opentrac.org
Mon Sep 24 00:19:39 UTC 2007

> You use proprietary technology every day.  Even your pics and DSPs are
> proprietary technology.  And that is exactly what we are talking about
> here.  A component called a codec that is proprietary to a specific
> company.

Nothing says you need to use a PIC for a particular mode.  In fact, I 
chose to use the HC08 for my stuff, and some day I'll move to ARM.

> The D-STAR specification is open, only the codec algorithm is not.  Your
> issue is that you don't think software IP should be IP but open to all
> even though hardware IP is not?

Did I say that?  You're totally missing my point.  We're talking about 
the difference between an implementation of a particular technology, and 
the technology itself.  You can build an FM transceiver however you 
want, as long as it obeys the laws of physics.  Icom can build their FM 
transceivers however they want, and they don't have to share.  But would 
you be OK with using FM transceivers if it meant paying a license to one 
company that owned a patent on FM and only allowed you to use their 

> We rely on proprietary IP every day in all of our systems.  Do you have
> the chip manufacturing plans for all of those proprietary DSPs,
> microprocessors, etc. etc. etc.  Of course not.  But because you can

And again, it doesn't matter, because I can freely move from HC08 to 
ARM7 to MSP430, or I can go download a free VHDL core and use an FPGA 
from any vendor I choose.

> The transmission mode is GMSK.  There are numerous sources for how to do
> GMSK.  Make your own radio, you have access to the entire D-STAR

It was an analogy.  I understand GMSK.

> I did and do build my own radios and we never had this kind of idiotic
> condemnation of companies because they wouldn't share their
> manufacturing technology with others.  You conveniently give a pass to

It's NOT manufacturing technology, it's a fundamental piece of the 
system's operation.  And this is exactly why we're doomed when it comes 
to this sort of thing - if intelligent, technically-oriented people 
can't get their heads around the difference between a technology and the 
implementation of that technology, what hope do we have that the average 
radio user is going to appreciate the difference?

> all of the manufacturers that make the components that don't have a
> second source yet you condemn a company for making their algorithm
> available on a license basis?  And you wrongly condemn the radio

Did you read my messages?  I specifically said that I have NOTHING 
against DVS selling AMBE chips and licenses.  That's great - they're 
developing technology, filling a need, and earning a profit for their 
trouble.  That's capitalism at work.  I only object to tying an 
ostensibly open AMATEUR standard to one critical piece of proprietary IP.

> manufacturers for using that algorithm when it was the JARL that made
> that decision based on best-available.

And it's our fault for not having raised hell when it was brought before 
the FCC for approval in the US.


More information about the aprssig mailing list