Actually I think they could achieve the desired effect
of continued development by releasing the source to to
a carefully chosen select few who will take the ball
and run with it. That way they can maintain a high
degree of control over the future code releases
without the direct overhead cost of continued
development on their own. They would just need to
structure such an agreement so that those who actually
get the access do actually do something with it, not
just sit on it. A free-for-all GPL like approach may
actually hurt the ADSP21xx DSP based radios reputation
in the long run. Too many folks would be hacking away
at the code (that shouldn't be) and handing it out to
just anybody, that could turn into a big mess in a
hurry. I can understand TT's reluctance to make it
truly open source for that reason alone. They should
provide this same small group the source for the
Jupiter's siblings Pegasus/516/RX350 since they all
share such a high degree of commonality in the DSP
code.
Duane (the other one)
N9DG
--- jerome schatten <romers@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Duane, since I've received a number of personal
> replies along similar lines
> as yours below, I will take the liberty of replying
> to the group:
>
> To address your point directly: If TT is looking at
> the prospect of selling
> or restricting it's intellectual property as a
> future revenue source, they
> need to pay far more attention to getting it right
> the first time -- which
> they don't seem to be doing right now . At least
> from the standpoint of
> outward behaviour, I don't think they have much
> interest in protecting, for
> example, the Jupe's NR system that starts with 15db
> loss of audio and gets
> worse from there.
>
> My point is, that the above example is something
> that can be fixed (along
> with a host of other things) probably in firmware.
> But who will bell the
> cat? If the Jupiter (and don't think this can't
> happen a year or so down
> the road to the Orion) is now a mature product and
> development has for all
> intents and purposes, stopped, we are left with
> something less than
> advertised ("Probably the last radio you will buy",
> or something like that);
> and that is less than satisfactory.
>
> Since we all have become beta testers by default, I
> think TT has a moral
> obligation to either make it all happen or let
> someone else have a crack at
> it. There's no shame in this -- TT has not failed,
> rather they have led the
> way. They fail only if they disappoint -- and I for
> one would be very
> disappointed if they made a radio, wouldn't fix it
> and allowed no-one else
> to fix it either. Hopefully they're much smarter
> than to let that happen.
>
> I think there is an enormous opportunity here for TT
> partner up with its
> customers in a way that enriches both sides.
>
> Best,
> jerome - VA7VV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|