DSD+ and source code release discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

mk262

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
423
Location
Daytona Beach
How about posting the source? I believe we're at our second 'improved' closed-source fork of DSD.

Code doesn't infringe patents, just binaries.

Now, when the author decides to move onto something more interesting or gets hit by a truck, we are stuck with a good app that slowly fades into obscurity for essentially no reason.

Also I'm pretty sure DSD plus violates the GPL as well.
 
Last edited:

Fizz306

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
205
Location
Scotch Plains, NJ
How about posting the source? I believe we're at our second 'improved' closed-source fork of DSD.

Code doesn't infringe patents, just binaries.

Now, when the author decides to move onto something more interesting or gets hit by a truck, we are stuck with a good app that slowly fades into obscurity for essentially no reason.

Also I'm pretty sure DSD plus violates the GPL as well.
2nd. this is being discussed over on the RTL-SDR subreddit. keeping it closed source...i don't understand the reasoning behind it. still, great software, non-the-less...
 

mk262

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
423
Location
Daytona Beach
2nd. this is being discussed over on the RTL-SDR subreddit. keeping it closed source...i don't understand the reasoning behind it. still, great software, non-the-less...
I mean, let's be honest--this is stolen. It's really that simple. I like it as much as everyone else, but the author has stolen the code, slapped improvements on top and called it his own.
 

Fizz306

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
205
Location
Scotch Plains, NJ
I mean, let's be honest--this is stolen. It's really that simple. I like it as much as everyone else, but the author has stolen the code, slapped improvements on top and called it his own.
it wouldn't be stolen if he open-forked it rather than close-forked it. but yea, you're essentially right. at least he's not charging money for it...
 

mk262

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
423
Location
Daytona Beach
it wouldn't be stolen if he open-forked it rather than close-forked it. but yea, you're essentially right. at least he's not charging money for it...
Yes of course. Obviously it wouldn't be a problem if they shared the source.

I'm sure the author is on the forums here anyway. While I appreciate what you're doing mtindor, it's sort of a waste of time for us to request features if the app could be abandoned without recovery at any moment. If the author is THAT paranoid about DVSI, post the code on a server outside the states and it's beyond golden.
 

mk262

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
423
Location
Daytona Beach
Indeed. No one expected this gem to show up at all, so anything is possible, and feature requests are as well.

I'd suggest just enjoying what's been provided as opposed to ripping the author. It's free software.Have fun with it.
Respectfully, it's clear you don't understand the GPL license that DSD is under.

Basically, if you make use of the DSD code in another product, you need to make that product (or the portions of it related to the original) open source.

What the author has done is violate that license he previously agreed to by taking it, modifying it, and not sharing those changes. This is precisely the scenario the GPL exists to prevent from happening.

I'm not "ripping the author", I'm stating facts. The author is likely well aware of this and is intentionally disregarding it.
 
Last edited:

PiccoIntegra

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
527
Location
North Texas
The only similarities between DSD and DSDPlus is likely the name itself. Maybe portions of the mbelib code. The DSD side run too well, and is efficient enough to be classified as a re-write from the ground up. Whom ever did this knows what they're doing.
 

mk262

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
423
Location
Daytona Beach
The only similarities between DSD and DSDPlus is likely the name itself. Maybe portions of the mbelib code. The DSD side run too well, and is efficient enough to be classified as a re-write from the ground up. Whom ever did this knows what they're doing.
Portions of mdelib still qualifies as using the GPL code.

Its in everyone's interest including the author's to release the source or put it in github.
 

AZScanner

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,352
Location
Somewhere in this room. Right now, you're very col
I've read these comments on the Reddit thread too, and I'm curious how people think the software is covered under the GPL license. There's no mention of it on DSD's readme file. Just this:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH
REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE
OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Am I missing something here? I'm genuinely curious.
-AZ
 

mk262

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
423
Location
Daytona Beach
I stand corrected. Its BSD not GPL.

Still, it would be in the best interest of everyone for the code to be posted.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
The confusion over GPL comes from the DSD 1.X fork on Github. See below:

Code:
[b]dstar_header.c/h, descramble.h, and fcs.h are under the following license:[/b]

dstar_header.c/h and fcs.h: Copyright (C) 2010 by Kristoff Bonne, ON1ARF
descramble.h: Copyright (C) 2011 by Jonathan Naylor, G4KLX

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

[b]All other code is under the following license:[/b]

Copyright (C) 2010 DSD Author
GPG Key ID: 0x3F1D7FD0 (74EF 430D F7F2 0A48 FCE6 F630 FAA2 635D 3F1D 7FD0)
So yeah, four of the source files in the github *fork* of the original DSD 1.4.X code are indeed GPL. The rest is not. Note that DSD Author's license does not prohibit works like the github fork, Woodpecker's fork, gr-DSD, or DSD+.

Since this thread is really about feature requests - here's one:

Ability to log and playback IMBE voice cells - either 144 or 88 bits per frame. Ditto for AMBE voice cells. MP3 is nice but xMBE is so much more compact. It's there, why not use it?

I know the github and WP forks of DSD do this but I didn't see this in the readme file for DSD+.
 

KC1UA

Scan New England Guru
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,587
Location
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Respectfully, it's clear you don't understand the GPL license that DSD is under.
Um, respectfully I agree with your assessment....

However....

As the thread is entitled "DSDPlus Feature Requests" you're severely off topic and likely should open another thread pertinent to your remarks.

Conversely, if I'd like to make a feature request that a future version of DSDPlus do my laundry and take out my trash....well I'll post it in this thread.

:D
 

groovy

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
29
AFAIK, the only GPL code in dsd is in the github version for D-Star header decoding, and D-Star support is not included in DSD+.

That said, I'm unhappy about the closed nature of DSD+ as well.

Also I'm pretty sure DSD plus violates the GPL as well.
 

exkalibur

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,677
Location
York, Ontario
So, for everyone complaining about it being closed source, would you rather the author discontinue support and pull the current version offline? Whoever this guy/girl is, they've obviously spent countless hours making it work. Don't be ungrateful for such a good FREE program.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
 

balr0g

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
2
So, for everyone complaining about it being closed source, would you rather the author discontinue support and pull the current version offline? Whoever this guy/girl is, they've obviously spent countless hours making it work. Don't be ungrateful for such a good FREE program.

As one of the developers who has spent countless hours implementing DSTAR voice decoding support in DSD and mbelib, I am rather annoyed by these closed-source forks. Let me put it this way: if DSD was closed-source from the beginning, software DSTAR voice decoding probably would not have happened. It would have been much more work, since everything would need to be implemented from scratch. I took a look at DSD+ and it's clearly a fork.

Developments like this encourage me to license my code under the GPL specifically to prevent this from happening. Due to these two closed-source forks, it is likely that future DSTAR improvements that I make will be licensed under the GPL. I much prefer keeping the original license, and so far that has worked for all other open source projects I've contributed to, but this is enough.

To the DSD+ author: Please release your source code. You're not doing anyone any favors by keeping it closed. All you're doing is making all of our work, including your own, much more difficult.
 

exkalibur

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,677
Location
York, Ontario
Well first of all, for people "demanding" that source code be release - what obligation is there under GPL? It isn't exactly enforceable. Secondly, I can totally understand why the author isn't interested in releasing the source code. That's exactly how programs get screwed up and complicated. Imagine if he/she released the source code, and 5 developers made changes/improvements. Now, a user would have to soft through 5 different programs that may or may not do what they want. By keeping a single "fork", it ensures that all efforts are contributed towards a single program to benefit all.

There's no question that DSD+ looks very similar to the original DSD, but just because it LOOKS the same doesn't mean it is. On the reddit thread, the OP stated that it was designed from the ground up - and judging by how far superior it decodes, I'm not surprised. There's really no way to know for sure either way unless the source code pops up somewhere. But the developer really has zero obligation to do that at all.
 

exkalibur

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,677
Location
York, Ontario
To the DSD+ author: Please release your source code. You're not doing anyone any favors by keeping it closed. All you're doing is making all of our work, including your own, much more difficult.
Respectfully, I doubt it would make his/her work more difficult. To date, no other DSD-like program has been released that works as well as this one does. To me, that indicates that nobody else is putting as much effort into it - or if they are, it hasn't been released.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top