Mikel Forcada EA5IYL / N7EES#FT2, "the fastest mode" is currently only available on Windows and there is no source code. It should not be in our bands like that.
Onno (VK6FLAB)@Ea5iyl AFAIK, WSJT-X is licensed under the GPL and if they're distributing a modified version without source code, they'd be in breach of that license.
@vk6flab Just wrote to Martino IU8LMC to warn him of this violation. Should I also contact the WSJT team?
@vk6flab I just wrote an email message to K1JT.
@vk6flab #FT2 OK, Martino IU8LMC came back to me. He basically says:
1. The FT2 encoder-decoder is his own work, and he reserves the right to publish the sources.
2. He's aware of the copyright breach will *soon* distribute the sources of the modified version of WSJT that accommodates the encoder-decoder.
(1/5)
@vk6flab So here's the deal:
#FT2 leverages WSJT-X as a platform by modifying it so that it works with their proprietary encoder-decoder.
When #FT2 publishes the modified WSJT-X "host" and the proprietary FT2 encoder/decoder "client" separately, have they solved the copyright breach?
Apparently, perhaps, yes. (2/5)
However, one could contend that, if the modified WSJT-X shares complex data structures or intimate memory spaces with the FT2 encoder-decoder, it is a derivative work. In this case, the proprietary #FT2 "plugin" must be open-sourced, or the developer is in breach.
What would be "acceptable"?
(3/5)
* If the modified WSJT-X software communicates with the proprietary FT2 encoder/decoder via a formal, documented interface (like a pipe, a socket, or a command-line argument), they are often considered separate programs.
* If Martino and colleagues added a generic plugin architecture to WSJT-X that could be used by anyone writing "plugins" similar to the one they wrote FT2, and then happens to use it for their proprietary tool, it would be harder to prove a breach.
(4/5)
@vk6flab #FT2
Epilogue: even if everything were legal, the code for the modified WSJT-X host were published, and the communication between host and client is clearly documented, I would still oppose this way of doing digital: there would be another proprietary mode out there that is not fully documented and that would require the use of closed-source software to use. Not the ham spirit of sharing and experimenting.
Epilogue: even if everything were legal, the code for the modified WSJT-X host were published, and the communication between host and client is clearly documented, I would still oppose this way of doing digital: there would be another proprietary mode out there that is not fully documented and that would require the use of closed-source software to use. Not the ham spirit of sharing and experimenting.
@Ea5iyl As far as I can tell, it follows a long line of precedent of such closed technologies and mentalities.
I believe that the following modes are encumbered in explicit and/or subtle ways:
DMR
Dstar
Echolink
Fusion
HamDRM
IRLP
SSTV
VARA
I'd not be surprised if there are others and it might be that I'm unaware of documentation or source code that negates the closed nature of these.
In other words, I think that these are encumbered but I might be wrong.
Sebastian DO2SGF@vk6flab HamDRM and SSTV is implemented in QSSTV which is open source
If wishing made it so.
In 2022 Randall VK6WR and I spent months attempting to discover just exactly how HamDRM works and let's just say .. the documentation is lacking.
I'm not sure if Randall published his results, but I'll check.
I wrote a podcast about it, but I'm not sure if the information is still current.