Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2900Re: [perseus_SDR] the world could be such a nice place ...

Expand Messages
  • Highq
    Oct 1, 2008
      Hi guys,

      there are many opinions about open or close project but your are missing
      an important point: CERTIFICATION and WARRANTY

      When you make an object like PERSEUS, or any other SDR, with the
      intention of place it in the market, your object must adhere to the rules of the game.
      CE / FCC, ecc ecc "dictate" the rules.

      ├ČI can not imagine an object as PERSEUS where the software is a big part of it,
      where the software is doing some of the specifications, pass the test of CE or
      FCC with an open source software or FPGA code, where anyone can manipulate
      all........specifications included.

      Here in EU zone, if an item does not have the CE certification (specific for his category),
      can not be placed on the market.

      Same for other famous SDR: FLEX-5000 from FlexRadio Systems.
      It uses PowerSDR an open source software, but some part of the software that
      runs F5K's hardware is protect in a firmware (most part of DSP) placed on EEPROM
      ........this to pass the certifications.


      I can not image Microtelecom gives warranty/assistance for his hardware when
      it is software-regulated as well as software defined by user defined software
      (sorry for play of words.....), in the case of open source.

      For the same reasons ICOM, AOR. YAESU, ecc ecc could not give assistance/guarantee
      and certificate his products.

      Enjoy your PERSEUS as is...... 8-)

      73 Beppe


      Dear list,

      I own a perseus receiver and I am really fascinated by this piece of
      absolutely brilliant engineering craftsmanship; I like to use the
      receiver very much and marvel at the capabilities of the new and ever
      improving software versions.

      After all the praise which is rightly given to the receiver and its
      designer, I feel that it is necessary to make some critical remarks.
      To me it might not be inconceivable that more people on this list
      share similar opinions.

      What really saddens me is the way Nico tries to protect the design of
      the receiver. A lot of people could have a much easier life if the
      software would run without a perseus ever connected to the pc. Anyhow
      now there seems to be a workaround. But what's then the point of
      "protecting" the software if it can be circumvented anyhow? The world
      could be such a nice place ...

      Similarly I am not feeling very well, to phrase it mildly, about the
      way the receiver is made user controllable. Using autohothey
      technology should really be a means of last resort. And don't tell me
      that using a virtual serial port is much better. I do not think the
      fpga code should necessarily be made open (although this would
      obviously be a very good thing to do), but it would be most helpful if
      at least the USB protocol were open.

      If the software worked truly without a physical perseus receiver
      connected to the pc, even more people would get interested in perseus;
      similarly if the USB protocol were open, everyone would be able to use
      the receiver in his/her own fashion and under his/her favorite
      operating system. I simply do not get the point of protecting the
      design that much. After all the perseus should generate quite a
      substantial revenue, given that the pure hardware costs are most
      likely well below 800 Euros.

      Best regards


    • Show all 20 messages in this topic