Why do radio amateurs settle for proprietary stuff? I'm talking about
not only software, but codecs etc.
Proprietary software and codecs goes against the very spirit of amateur
radio IMO. We should only be using 'free' software (free in copyright
terms, not in cost) and open standards which aren't patent-encumbered.
I fear that radio amateurs risk being at the mercy of commercial
interests if we continue down the path of accepting such things.
I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this.
Why do radio amateurs settle for proprietary stuff? I'm talking about
not only software, but codecs etc.
Proprietary software and codecs goes against the very spirit of amateur
radio IMO. We should only be using 'free' software (free in copyright
terms, not in cost) and open standards which aren't patent-encumbered.
I fear that radio amateurs risk being at the mercy of commercial
interests if we continue down the path of accepting such things.
I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this.
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:27:01 +0100, just as I was about to take a
herb, MM0DSM <mm0dsm@nospam.invalid> disturbed my reverie and wrote:
Why do radio amateurs settle for proprietary stuff? I'm talking about
not only software, but codecs etc.
Proprietary software and codecs goes against the very spirit of amateur
radio IMO. We should only be using 'free' software (free in copyright
terms, not in cost) and open standards which aren't patent-encumbered.
I fear that radio amateurs risk being at the mercy of commercial
interests if we continue down the path of accepting such things.
I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this.
Personally, I am not fussed either way. I just want the software to
work. Commercial interests are the drivers of innovation.
I agree. This is why I've stayed away from fusion, dstar, drm, etc.
On 12/10/2020 19:40, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
[]
I agree. This is why I've stayed away from fusion, dstar, drm, etc.
DMR is not proprietary, that's one reason there are multiple suppliers,
and the cost is proportionately lower.
Commercial interests are the drivers of innovation.
On 14/10/2020 05:18, David Taylor wrote:
On 12/10/2020 19:40, Ottavio Caruso wrote:DMR uses the AMBE+2 codec, which is proprietary.
[]
I agree. This is why I've stayed away from fusion, dstar, drm, etc.
DMR is not proprietary, that's one reason there are multiple
suppliers, and the cost is proportionately lower.
Use of the AMBE standard requires a license from Digital Voice Systems,
who owns the rights. While large manufacturers may be able to afford
this, radio amateurs will not. The spirit of amateur radio is that we
should be able to build and use our own equipment on air and freely
share our designs with others. However, any radio amateur doing this
with DMR would be liable to legal action from Digital Voice Systems.
This effectively means that we are prohibited from designing or building
our own DMR equipment on legal grounds.
And according to Wikipedia, "given the current limited scope of the DMR standard, many vendors have introduced proprietary features that make
their product offerings non-interoperable with other brands."
On 14/10/2020 05:18, David Taylor wrote:
On 12/10/2020 19:40, Ottavio Caruso wrote:DMR uses the AMBE+2 codec, which is proprietary.
[]
I agree. This is why I've stayed away from fusion, dstar, drm, etc.
DMR is not proprietary, that's one reason there are multiple
suppliers, and the cost is proportionately lower.
Use of the AMBE standard requires a license from Digital Voice Systems,
who owns the rights. While large manufacturers may be able to afford
this, radio amateurs will not. The spirit of amateur radio is that we
should be able to build and use our own equipment on air and freely
share our designs with others. However, any radio amateur doing this
with DMR would be liable to legal action from Digital Voice Systems.
This effectively means that we are prohibited from designing or building
our own DMR equipment on legal grounds.
And according to Wikipedia, "given the current limited scope of the DMR standard, many vendors have introduced proprietary features that make
their product offerings non-interoperable with other brands."
On 14/10/2020 09:00, MM0DSM wrote:
On 14/10/2020 05:18, David Taylor wrote:
On 12/10/2020 19:40, Ottavio Caruso wrote:DMR uses the AMBE+2 codec, which is proprietary.
[]
I agree. This is why I've stayed away from fusion, dstar, drm, etc.
DMR is not proprietary, that's one reason there are multiple
suppliers, and the cost is proportionately lower.
Use of the AMBE standard requires a license from Digital Voice Systems,
who owns the rights. While large manufacturers may be able to afford
this, radio amateurs will not. The spirit of amateur radio is that we
should be able to build and use our own equipment on air and freely
share our designs with others. However, any radio amateur doing this
with DMR would be liable to legal action from Digital Voice Systems.
This effectively means that we are prohibited from designing or building
our own DMR equipment on legal grounds.
And according to Wikipedia, "given the current limited scope of the DMR
standard, many vendors have introduced proprietary features that make
their product offerings non-interoperable with other brands."
As Usenet is the original forum on the Internet, perhaps this NG would
be an appropriate place to discuss the technology of voice codecs and
so initiate a new design amongst ourselves?
This, I am sure, would be a better thread than just whingeing about
others' codecs, and also show that amateur radio remains in the
forefront of technical developments?
73 de Gareth G4SDW (ne G8DXY) GQRP #3339
Just to point out that D-star and Yaesu's C4FM used in their Fusion
Range both use the AMBE or compatible proprietary codecs as well as DMR
I don't believe that the DMR standard mandates the use of the DVSI AMBE codec, just that most of the manufacturers have taken it on board as it
is a cost effective solution. Probably less than $1 a chip in their sort
of quantities. Although some have been moving to the DSPINI decoder
which is compatible over the air with the AMBE device.
You can but then direct from DVSI or DSPINI but of course they have min
order quantity, but I an sure there are sources for small quantities ,
at a price.
There are several amateur projects out there to provene a over the air compatible codec, whic as long as none of DVSI's routines are copied
will be fine from a copyright standpoint, which I think meets your
'Amateur' requirement.
AS far as I am aware all DMR makes are compatible on plian voice, but
there are differences in encryption algorithm between some
manufacturers, and also perhaps SMS messaging.
73
Jeff
On 13/10/2020 17:21, Guy G4DWV 4X1LT wrote:
Commercial interests are the drivers of innovation.
It's my impression that real engineering innovation, particularly when
it comes to software, doesn't come from commercial interests. (Remember that the current big internet companies are innovating in marketing, not engineering.)
What seems to happen is the amateurs and academics (a lot of the people involved with the internet before the .com era here both academics and
radio amateurs). Where the commercial interests tend to get involved is
in:
1) Dumbed down, and glossy user interfaces;
2) Creating fashion trends, so that people feel obliged to continually
buy new versions; and
3) Adding features that are only really of interest to other businesses.
Often, it is only once the academics and amateurs have proved something
is possible and people want to use it, that the commercial interest
consider they have a safe business case to work on it.
This is particularly true of consumer products, which is what we are
talking about, here.
On 14/10/2020 10:56, Jeff wrote:
Just to point out that D-star and Yaesu's C4FM used in their Fusion
Range both use the AMBE or compatible proprietary codecs as well as DMR
I don't believe that the DMR standard mandates the use of the DVSI
AMBE codec, just that most of the manufacturers have taken it on board
as it is a cost effective solution. Probably less than $1 a chip in
their sort of quantities. Although some have been moving to the DSPINI
decoder which is compatible over the air with the AMBE device.
You can but then direct from DVSI or DSPINI but of course they have
min order quantity, but I an sure there are sources for small
quantities , at a price.
There are several amateur projects out there to provene a over the air
compatible codec, whic as long as none of DVSI's routines are copied
will be fine from a copyright standpoint, which I think meets your
'Amateur' requirement.
AS far as I am aware all DMR makes are compatible on plian voice, but
there are differences in encryption algorithm between some
manufacturers, and also perhaps SMS messaging.
73
Jeff
It's not just copyright that's the problem though. You are correct that
there would be no copyright violation so long as there was 'clean-room' reverse engineering of the codec. The problem is that patent laws would
still apply and therefore royalties. This has been a problem with other 'standards' too such as h264 video, and previously with mp3 audio and
gif images which were all patent-encumbered.
The fact is that if an individual amateur or group of amateurs designed
a DMR radio using the proprietary codec, then legal action could be
taken against them. This just doesn't sit well with me as it goes
against the idea that anyone should be allowed to design and build their
own equipment.
On 14/10/2020 12:23, David Woolley wrote:
On 13/10/2020 17:21, Guy G4DWV 4X1LT wrote:
Commercial interests are the drivers of innovation.
It's my impression that real engineering innovation, particularly when
it comes to software, doesn't come from commercial interests. (Remember that the current big internet companies are innovating in marketing, not engineering.)
What seems to happen is the amateurs and academics (a lot of the people involved with the internet before the .com era here both academics and radio amateurs). Where the commercial interests tend to get involved is in:
1) Dumbed down, and glossy user interfaces;
2) Creating fashion trends, so that people feel obliged to continually
buy new versions; and
3) Adding features that are only really of interest to other businesses.
Often, it is only once the academics and amateurs have proved something
is possible and people want to use it, that the commercial interest consider they have a safe business case to work on it.
This is particularly true of consumer products, which is what we are talking about, here.
That's a rather insightful analysis. Businesses initially rejected free
and open-source software until they saw the huge benefits and realised
that it would provide an open platform to build their business models upon.
On 14/10/2020 12:23, David Woolley wrote:
On 13/10/2020 17:21, Guy G4DWV 4X1LT wrote:
Commercial interests are the drivers of innovation.
It's my impression that real engineering innovation, particularly when
it comes to software, doesn't come from commercial interests. (Remember that the current big internet companies are innovating in marketing, not engineering.)
What seems to happen is the amateurs and academics (a lot of the people involved with the internet before the .com era here both academics and radio amateurs). Where the commercial interests tend to get involved is in:
1) Dumbed down, and glossy user interfaces;
2) Creating fashion trends, so that people feel obliged to continually
buy new versions; and
3) Adding features that are only really of interest to other businesses.
Often, it is only once the academics and amateurs have proved something
is possible and people want to use it, that the commercial interest consider they have a safe business case to work on it.
This is particularly true of consumer products, which is what we are talking about, here.
That's a rather insightful analysis. Businesses initially rejected free
and open-source software until they saw the huge benefits and realised
that it would provide an open platform to build their business models upon.
Apologies if this post appears twice, my first attempt apparently fell into the bit bucket.[]
73
Dave
VK6AI
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:33:26 AM UTC+8, MM0DSM wrote:
On 14/10/2020 12:23, David Woolley wrote:
On 13/10/2020 17:21, Guy G4DWV 4X1LT wrote:
Commercial interests are the drivers of innovation.
It's my impression that real engineering innovation, particularly when
it comes to software, doesn't come from commercial interests. (Remember >>> that the current big internet companies are innovating in marketing, not >>> engineering.)
What seems to happen is the amateurs and academics (a lot of the people
involved with the internet before the .com era here both academics and
radio amateurs). Where the commercial interests tend to get involved is >>> in:
1) Dumbed down, and glossy user interfaces;
2) Creating fashion trends, so that people feel obliged to continually
buy new versions; and
3) Adding features that are only really of interest to other businesses. >>>
Often, it is only once the academics and amateurs have proved something
is possible and people want to use it, that the commercial interest
consider they have a safe business case to work on it.
This is particularly true of consumer products, which is what we are
talking about, here.
That's a rather insightful analysis. Businesses initially rejected free
and open-source software until they saw the huge benefits and realised
that it would provide an open platform to build their business models upon.
Apologies if this post appears twice, my first attempt apparently fell into the bit bucket.
Have a look at https://m17project.org/
These guys want to blow proprietary codecs away and have a working example written by David Rowe.
73
Dave
VK6AI
It's not just copyright that's the problem though. You are correct that
there would be no copyright violation so long as there was 'clean-room' reverse engineering of the codec. The problem is that patent laws would
still apply and therefore royalties. This has been a problem with other 'standards' too such as h264 video, and previously with mp3 audio and
gif images which were all patent-encumbered.
The fact is that if an individual amateur or group of amateurs designed
a DMR radio using the proprietary codec, then legal action could be
taken against them. This just doesn't sit well with me as it goes
against the idea that anyone should be allowed to design and build their
own equipment.
Why do radio amateurs settle for proprietary stuff? I'm talking about
not only software, but codecs etc.
Proprietary software and codecs goes against the very spirit of amateur
radio IMO. We should only be using 'free' software (free in copyright
terms, not in cost) and open standards which aren't patent-encumbered.
I fear that radio amateurs risk being at the mercy of commercial
interests if we continue down the path of accepting such things.
I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this.
There is Opus (https://opus-codec.org/) and also the older Speex, which
are both suitable for low bitrate speech and are royalty-free. The main
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 60:26:55 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,392 |