[aprssig] Re: D-STAR video on YouTube

Danny Messano danny at messano.net
Mon Sep 24 03:44:11 CDT 2007

Your comments are nothing but argumentative at best.  You're borderline
fabricating things I have said and now I am backpeddling... about what?
Last time I checked, you were the one that had me slamming corporations as
has never having done anything good, and lawyers being evil.  If there was
any coloring being done, it was on that end. 

If you don't think the D-STAR system is "lawyer-protected", then go ahead
and create a version of AMBE as your own and see if they don't come
knocking.  I seriously doubt their codec will be released into the public
domain anytime soon, because last time I checked, they are a business and
are trying to *make money* from it.  Of course, with that, I am sure you'll
accuse me of attacking the free enterprise system, right?

Most of the technology used IN a ham *radio* today IS well outside the
ability of an individual to replicate.  What is used on the air IS NOT.
You're missing the point, greatly.


-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Fellhauer
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:12 AM
To: 'TAPR APRS Mailing List'
Subject: [aprssig] Re: D-STAR video on YouTube

At 12:42 AM 9/24/2007, Danny Messano wrote:

>I think you've spent way too much time arguing on internet discussion 
>boards.  This isn't about "those evil lawyers" or "big bad corporations".

What Internet discussion boards am I arguing on?  Aside from this one?

You were the one who brought the lawyers and corporate comments into the
mix.  And it was a deliberate attempt to color the discussion.  It's 
obvious you have a problem with our current economic models.   Don't make 
me parse your words.

>This is about someone implementing a standard on the ham bands that is 
>encumbered by licensing.  If I owned the rights to the codec and you 
>violated them by developing an open source version of it, I would sue 
>you too, and I have sometimes been accused of being a pretty nice guy 

Again.  Implementing a similar standard with similar features does not
constitute making an open source version of that product and is not 
actionable.   But it won't happen until people see the utility of the 
original product.  DVSI's patents and copyrights are not that broad.  And
you've never openly considered DVSI releasing the technology to the public
domain in a few years.

>Amateur Radio is a hobby with roots in freedom and experimentation.
>Licensing, freedom, and experimentation do NOT play well together, nor 
>should they.  I don't think anything should be allowed to exist on "the
>on an Amateur Radio frequency that I am not free to create myself, 
>unencumbered.  I should also be able to extend it as much as I want, 
>and others should be able to do the same.

And as has been pointed out, by not just me, this is a specious argument and
opinion.  Your viewpoints as exposed by your comments fall well outside 
of the mainstream.   And you backpedal when called on it.   Most of the 
technolgy used in ham radio today falls well outside the ability of an 
individual to duplicate.    That's patently obvious.

Furthermore, one of the most vocal D-Star opponents on this SIG; and a
person who has openly professed he hopes D-Star dies, has a financial 
interest in current APRS technology.   Hmmm...


aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org

More information about the aprssig mailing list