K2: Firmware Escrow
Locked
 
|
The point is not that the code be somewhere safe in
case of disaster, rogue employees, or loss of a backup, but rather that the code be legally accessible by customers in the event that the company abandons, for whatever reason, its ongoing maintenance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And there's the pleasant thought of the day!!! ;-) I am willing to pay my share of the flight insurance for (where the heck are they this weekend - Plano Texas?) but somebody else needs to pitch in for the next rally, okay? Personally, I don't think they should ever travel together and we should have some skin flecks from each of them in case we need to clone one of them down the road. We should also ask them if we make more of them if it would help production or slow it down. Hmmmm. ??? In addition, I'd like to take odds on which one, Eric or Wayne would go rogue first, assuming Lisa has not been overworked in their absence of late. That's the wild card in this deal. 73, de my call at yaoo dot com 73, Don RE: [Elecraft] K2: Firmware Escrow from [Craig Rairdin] [Permanent Link][Original] To: "'Elecraft'" <[hidden email]> Subject: RE: [Elecraft] K2: Firmware Escrow From: "Craig Rairdin" <[hidden email]> > It's called Disaster Preparedness..... You guys are all missing the point of the original post, which was excellent by the way. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
There is a very good alternative to software escrow: open software.
Since the K3 software is hardware-specific, it is unlikely that it will give other vendors a leg up to see the Elecraft source code. So two things happen by making Elecraft's software open: 1. It solves the escrow problem by automatically creating multiple copies of the source tree. I know I would grab a copy and I am sure others would too. 2. Anyone can generate a software build. Even if Elecraft stopped developing a particular radio, owners can still enhance their equipment, much in the way we still have folks experimenting with older vacuum tube (valve) kit today. 2. Others with good ideas can add functionality and features to the radio without having to wait for Elecraft to get around to it. Elecraft can even fold good, well thought-out features back into the "official" source tree. YMMV 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> very good alternative to software escrow: open software. Since the K3 That's what I was hinting at when I was talking of the conflict between "amateur" and "business". I didn't pursue that because it seems that Elecraft are pretty well sold on the idea that intellectual property, except for the hardware schematic, should be closely guarded, so I just discussed the option used by most non-monopoly closed source software suppliers, i.e. companies that keep intellectual property close to their chest. For example, Elecraft protect something which is of much less value than the firmware, namely the copper layers of the PCB artwork, only allowing a noisy JPEG of the actual boards to be published when they must have the ability to publish the actual artwork. As a constructor, that makes it difficult for me to work out whether two adjacent pads are connected, or I need to resolve a short, and it makes signal tracing difficult. Even with a bit map, I could flood fill to see what's connected on a single layer. I imagine the tooling cost means that it is cheaper for an individual to buy the board, a legitimate competitor would respect the copyright and a dodgy one could recreate the artwork in about the time it takes to construct one kit. > software is hardware-specific, it is unlikely that it will give other Personally I tend to believe that, where the business model is based on selling the hardware, it is good to "open source" the supporting software, or at least publish it with a no-commercial use clause. However, it continually irritates me how many hardware vendors won't even publish sufficient information to write a device driver. It's more difficult for things like APRS, which I believe is not legally implementable by amateurs. > vendors a leg up to see the Elecraft source code. So two things happen > by making Elecraft's software open: > 2. Anyone can generate a software build. Even if Elecraft stopped > developing a particular radio, owners can still enhance their equipment, I'm not sure whether the Elecraft people are basically businessmen or amateur radio people, but for a businessman, the ability to kill a product has the advantages that: - you can cease supporting an early product without having sales of later products undermined by competitors, or end users, who continue to maintain the earlier one; - you increase the value of the company to a competitor when you come to retire, etc., as the competitor can remove your product from the market. Microsoft rely on being able to kill products; preferably by making them appear unfashionable, but also by withdrawing even security support, to force people to upgrade, and by locking the licence to a specific hardware instance, to force software upgrades on hardware upgrades.. > > 2. Others with good ideas can add functionality and features to the > radio without having to wait for Elecraft to get around to it. Elecraft This is double edged. It can lead to increased primary sales, but it can also damage the after market for the primary company. > can even fold good, well thought-out features back into the "official" > source tree. A really competent company will do this and will also counter-innovate, but most companies prefer to use secrecy instead, as it is more predictable. > much in the way we still have folks experimenting with older vacuum > tube (valve) kit today. The move to software and protection of software by secrecy is generally a bad thing for innovation by amateurs (in a general sense). In the past, whether or not strictly legal, non-commercial developers were not impacted by patents, but these days they cannot get the information needed to innovate. In the short term, that fits in with fact that Western economies are now intellectual property economies, but in the longer term it seems to me that it will reduce the supply of innovators and it is already resulting in a vast amount of duplicated effort. Elecraft are in the border area between amateur as learner and innovator and amateur as appliance operator. Companies selling to the latter role are just selling to yet another consumer technology product, and want good consumers, not innovators. One other possible reason for restricting the firmware is that releasing it facilitates overriding operating frequency ranges, etc. Legislating restrictions is easy for governments, although I would argue that, where national security is involved, recreating sufficient firmware from scratch is well within the capabilities of most insurgent groups who might otherwise find the hardware easy to import and better than alternatives. Incidentally, a couple of points that arose elsewhere in the thread: - escrow is only useful if the customers know about it, so assuming that the company does the right thing is not good enough (I think this was the result of thinking escrow referred to off site backups); - a takeover by an asset stripper is not necessarily hostile - hostility is determined by the views of the directors, not the impact on customers (and employees). -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Jun 10, 2007, at 2:59 AM, David Woolley wrote:
> I imagine the tooling cost means that it is cheaper for an > individual to buy the board, a legitimate competitor would respect > the copyright and a dodgy one could recreate the artwork in about > the time it takes to construct one kit. Correct. OTOH, the would-be competitor would not likely be able to innovate to the level required to be competitive. Even if the competitor started out even with the hardware and software, the competitor would quickly fall behind because the competitor does not have the necessary innovative people. This is why both trade secret and patents do not produce the results expected. >> software is hardware-specific, it is unlikely that it will give other > > Personally I tend to believe that, where the business model is > based on selling the hardware, it is good to "open source" the > supporting software, or at least publish it with a no-commercial > use clause. However, it continually irritates me how many hardware > vendors won't even publish sufficient information to write a device > driver. I have seen that too. It is a pain and tends to lock us into things like Windows. > It's more difficult for things like APRS, which I believe is not > legally implementable by amateurs. Huh? I thought Bob Bruninga published the spec for APRS in one of the ARRL/TAPR/AMRAD digital conferences and anyone could do it. >> vendors a leg up to see the Elecraft source code. So two things >> happen by making Elecraft's software open: > >> 2. Anyone can generate a software build. Even if Elecraft stopped >> developing a particular radio, owners can still enhance their >> equipment, > > I'm not sure whether the Elecraft people are basically businessmen > or amateur radio people, but for a businessman, the ability to > kill a product has the advantages that: > > - you can cease supporting an early product without having sales of > later products undermined by competitors, or end users, who continue > to maintain the earlier one; The people who will take advantage of this sort of thing are a relatively small part of the market. How many people the ham community actual pick up a soldering iron these days? Precious few. These are the only ones for whom software escrow or open software becomes an issue. Therefore, for the large percentage of the market, this is a non-issue and will have no impact on future sales. > > - you increase the value of the company to a competitor when you come > to retire, etc., as the competitor can remove your product from the > market. If the old product is such competition to the new product, you haven't done a very good job on the new product. Consider the K2 and the K3. Do you not agree that the K3 is sufficiently advanced relative to the K2 that the K2 presents no real challenge to the K3? If a competitor would buy Elecraft for the K3 technology, either to use it to get a leg up on their other competitors or to kill the K3, support for the K2 is not likely to be an issue. > Microsoft rely on being able to kill products; preferably by making > them appear unfashionable, but also by withdrawing even security > support, to force people to upgrade, and by locking the licence to > a specific hardware instance, to force software upgrades on > hardware upgrades. Perhaps I am an idealist but I like to think that products get better and justify themselves that way. The problem Microsoft has is that there really isn't all that much substantive you can add to an operating system to really justify an upgrade. Instead MS relies on flashy visual things instead of substantive underlying structural improvements. Many people realize that there really isn't an advantage of Vista over XP over 2000 and therefore there really isn't a need to upgrade. Microsoft then has to force the issue with the customer. Now if Microsoft were to add features like the zetabyte file system, virutalization, reduced context switching time, etc., then there would be a real reason to upgrade as there would be real performance advantages. > >> 2. Others with good ideas can add functionality and features to >> the radio without having to wait for Elecraft to get around to it. >> Elecraft > > This is double edged. It can lead to increased primary sales, but > it can also damage the after market for the primary company. It is a competitive market. Sun and Apple both recognize that their R&D dollars are smaller than Microsoft's. Both Sun and Apple have thrown their operating systems 'open'. I believe this is an attempt to help find the talented people who will make improvements that keep them ahead of the guys with the bigger wallets. >> can even fold good, well thought-out features back into the >> "official" source tree. > > A really competent company will do this and will also counter- > innovate, but most companies prefer to use secrecy instead, as it > is more predictable. An interesting example of openness is the Internet. There you had competitors innovating cooperatively and the results were to vastly grow the market. That is a way to make a lot more money without having to try to take market share from someone else. > > > much in the way we still have folks experimenting with older vacuum > > tube (valve) kit today. > > The move to software and protection of software by secrecy is > generally a bad thing for innovation by amateurs (in a general > sense). In the past, whether or not strictly legal, non-commercial > developers were not impacted by patents, but these days they cannot > get the information needed to innovate. In the short term, that > fits in with fact that Western economies are now intellectual > property economies, but in the longer term it seems to me that it > will reduce the supply of innovators and it is already resulting in > a vast amount of duplicated effort. I agree. > Elecraft are in the border area between amateur as learner and > innovator and amateur as appliance operator. Companies selling to > the latter role are just selling to yet another consumer technology > product, and want good consumers, not innovators. I agree. > One other possible reason for restricting the firmware is that > releasing it facilitates overriding operating frequency ranges, > etc. Legislating restrictions is easy for governments, although I > would argue that, where national security is involved, recreating > sufficient firmware from scratch is well within the capabilities of > most insurgent groups who might otherwise find the hardware easy to > import and better than alternatives. To some extent I agree. Unless Elecraft is actively pursuing sales in restrictive countries, they are not likely to run into the problem. I think that they are just trying to meet current demand. 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Am I the only one who finds this entire topic cheeky and tiresome?
John, W2GW _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
RE: K2: Firmware Escrow
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Reiser > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 11:15 PM > To: Brian Lloyd; David Woolley > Cc: Elecraft > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K2: Firmware Escrow > > Am I the only one who finds this entire topic cheeky and tiresome? Nope BR, John _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by John E. Reiser
> Am I the only one who finds this entire topic cheeky and tiresome?
Not sure about your definition of 'cheeky' -- but it is tiresome. If someone is that concerned about future software support, try getting a radio with out any software. Maybe they should just buy a Ten-Tec, or an I/Y/K. Those must come complete code for all the internal processors. <grin> I'm very happy with Elecraft's support. Mark AD5SS On 6/10/07, John Reiser <[hidden email]> wrote: > Am I the only one who finds this entire topic cheeky and tiresome? > > John, W2GW > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Look, guys, code escrow is a valid discussion topic. I don't care if TenTec
doesn't escrow their code, they should, and that's the point. I agree when we go off into a discussion of open-source vs. proprietary trade secrets that it gets a little old (only because I have that discussion on other lists, too). But it's no worse than a lot of the other noise that populates this list from time to time. You have to take the good with the bad. I get tired of posts about whether the S-meter on the K2 is accurate, whether or not the Rework Eliminators are worthwhile, and how horrible it is to wind torroids but I know that there are people out there who care about all that stuff. 99% of what's posted here affects only 1% of the subscribers. But it's great when a subject comes up where you're one of the 1% for a couple days. So turn on vacation mode, or turn on digest mode, or just hit delete. About two more "when will this thread end" posts and there will have been more complaints about the thread than there were posts on the topic. :-) Craig NZ0R -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Bayern Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:34 PM To: John Reiser Cc: Elecraft; David Woolley Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K2: Firmware Escrow > Am I the only one who finds this entire topic cheeky and tiresome? Not sure about your definition of 'cheeky' -- but it is tiresome. If someone is that concerned about future software support, try getting a radio with out any software. Maybe they should just buy a Ten-Tec, or an I/Y/K. Those must come complete code for all the internal processors. <grin> I'm very happy with Elecraft's support. Mark AD5SS On 6/10/07, John Reiser <[hidden email]> wrote: > Am I the only one who finds this entire topic cheeky and tiresome? > > John, W2GW > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by John E. Reiser
John Reiser <[hidden email]> wrote: (06/10/2007 19:15) >Am I the only one who finds this entire topic cheeky and tiresome? > >John, W2GW > ' So what's new? John - W2AGN _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin
Yes, the subject is of little interest to most and -IS- indeed
getting old. On one hand we have LOTS of postings praising the integrity of the Elecraft folks and on the other hand is the strongly implied ("cheeky" / insulting) implication that they're somehow not capable of looking after "the code". If one is (honestly) worried about Elecraft not acting responsiblly in their handling of "the code" ... and other customer care related matters ... there's a simple answer. Don't buy the product. 73! Ken Kopp - K0PP [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: K2: Firmware Escrow
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Bayern
On Sunday 10 June 2007 18:34:21 Mark Bayern wrote:
> Not sure about your definition of 'cheeky' -- but it is tiresome. If > someone is that concerned about future software support, try getting a > radio with out any software. My Eddystone EA12 contains no software. And if I could edit the K2 firmware, I'd add features I want and cut the stuff I don't, such as paddle morse. Ian, G4ICV, AB2GR, K2 #4962 -- _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brian Lloyd-6
I am sorry to hear that this topic annoys some of you. I assure you
that it is not my intention. I have been playing with amateur radio kit for about 45 years now. I also play with old airplanes. One of the things that one begins to see is that sometimes parts become unavailable. Some vacuum tubes have become more difficult to acquire. That disturbs me because I have some treasured old radios and audio equipment that I want to keep working. Likewise with airplanes. Parts for older airplanes are getting very difficult to acquire, so much so that I have started combing the junkyards for usable obscure parts just-in-case. I grab those things that I am unlikely to be able to manufacture on my own. The same goes for radios. One of the things that has come over time is that short lifetime of some systems. We don't keep our computers for years and years anymore. Five years and it is junk. But we do tend to keep our radios for a long time. All I want is to ensure that, if I have to repair or modify my radio, I will have *all* the parts I need to do so. Software is now a part. YMMV 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> for a long time. All I want is to ensure that, if I have to repair or modify > my radio, I will have *all* the parts I need to do so. Software is now a > part. What assurances have you received from other radio manufacturers that you will have *all* the parts you need? I'm trying to identify any piece of sophisticated equipment I own where I know I will be able to have *all* of the parts I need to repair or modify the equipment. > > YMMV Yes, I expect things at some point not to be repairable. Thom,EIEIO Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer www.baltimorehon.com/ Home of the Baltimore Lexicon www.tlchost.net/hosting/ Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don Rasmussen
I belong to a few other lists. One notable list is the Yaesu FT100/D group.
If you have never visited, they are a Yahoo group list. I have an FT100 and its a terrific rig in many ways. In Some ways it is similar to the K2 size power, etc but in no way resembles the K2 as a receiving tool. When it comes to mainline suppliers, I consider Yaesu to be one of the best, or least up til a few years ago. I have many of their radios and on two occasions I have used their repair service with excellent results. That said, if you were to go to the Yahoo list archive, you will find volumes of traffic about the fact they will not service rigs with dead power transistors. Why?, because the manufacturer, Motorola (small no-name semi outfit in Arizona), stopped producing the devices. That coupled with a high failure rate because of questionable and uncharacteristic (for Yaesu) assembly processes have produced a large number of owners who are very disappointed with the product. By shear trial and misfortune, most owners have been able to head off failure. Those of us who have survived have learned how to clean excess flux from the mounting surfaces of the power xistors, add star washers and re-torque fasteners and ground screws, modify cooling fans so they run when needed, run reduced power for limited duty cycle, etc, etc. The best assurance you can have is a good design team that won't paint you into a corner. How many of you can name even one designer that has worked on your Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood? I'll bet most of you have personally met the designers at Elecraft. THAT makes the difference to me. Al WA6VNN ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don Rasmussen
There are lots of guys out there looking for spare parts, including control
heads. He could recover some cost when the time comes. For the VHF/UHF there are several replacements that work fairly well and worth trying. It's the HF that's a bugger. One problem for all these type rigs is the size, just not enough room for the mods needed to use optional parts. Al WA6VNN ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |