[hpsdr] THANKS DON AE5K

[Erik N Basilier]

I am rather new to this group, don't know anyone involved, but invested in 
hpsdr hardware. I am probably not unique in my situation. From this 
perspective I am of course very concerned about the recent events. Not 
having been involved in the birth of hpsdr, I have to think that it would 
have been helpful if those that were could have early on taken more positive 
action to deal head-on with the rather likely prospect of conflict between 
commercial and non-commercial interests. But that is easy for me to say as 
an outsider and in hindsight. I won't point the finger at anybody, and I 
recognize that a great deal of good work has been done in defining licenses 
with the objective of preventing future conflicts. I do see it as a positive 
that commercial product is available, and were it not for the fun of 
constructing equipment, I might have chosen to go with it myself. (I am not 
a fan of transceivers that require a PC to work, and if I ever add transmit 
capability to my hpsdr, it will be for the fun of doing it rather than 
wanting to use it. If I regret anything about choosing the Atlas-based 
equipment, it is the bulk of it, and I hope there will be an Atlas Lite and 
a Pandora Lite.)

Going forward, I don't want to see either the commercial or the 
non-commercial entities going away, and I think it would be in the interest 
of most to have peace between the camps. Rather than keep dealing with the 
issues from a generic perspective (license formulations) maybe it would be 
appropriate to have some more specific agreements signed between the now 
predominating commercial entity and openhpsdr. Some kind of give and take 
about what kinds of products each side may offer in the future, so as not to 
step on the other side's toes. If I were in the commercial camp I probably 
wouldn't like it if the non-commercial side were to offer ready-to-use and 
cheaper versions of my commercial products. If I were in the non-commercial 
camp, my natural constituency would probably be those that like to build and 
experiment, and I might want to give up aspirations of selling ready-to-use 
equipment if I were guaranteed the right to make kits including designs 
contributed to by engineers on the commercial side. Of course one cannot 
just focus on one commercial entity, but licenses must be used to prevent 
conflict with other commercial entities in the future.

An obvious problem with my reasoning in the previous paragraph is the fact 
that hpsdr (as I now understand it) is not an organized entity. Perhaps it 
needs to become organized, with officers elected and empowered to make 
contracts with commercial entities. I know nothing about the politics of 
TAPR, but at least it is an organized entity. From my naive standpoint, it 
seems that hpsdr could become organized by merging into TAPR. That may be a 
really bad idea, I just don't know.

73,
Erik K7TV

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john" <jbden at charter.net>
To: <hpsdr at openhpsdr.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:32 PM
Subject: [hpsdr] THANKS DON AE5K


> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
>
> I hope all the WHY people are happy. If you have been member of this
> group as long as I have, it was obvious Phil C. was out to destroy it
> once he started his commercial venture. I hope Don can be persuaded to
> change his mind by a show of support from the silent majority.
> THANKS very much Don for your support through the years.
>
> _______________________________________________
> HPSDR Discussion List
> To post msg: hpsdr at openhpsdr.org
> Subscription help: 
> http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org
> HPSDR web page: http://openhpsdr.org
> Archives: http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/
> 



 1242265969.0