[TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:12:43 -0400
That's a bad analogy. The updates are 'free' in the sense that I do not
have to pay any additional money for them.
Under the DMCA I can not legally reverse engineer TenTec's
SW in order to make a modification. I would have to rewrite the
whole mess from scratch! This is a severely limits my interest
in owning such a radio. Add a fee structure to updates that
I might like to make myself and share with other hams and I've
no interest in owning the radio.
Why should "we as hams" expect "them" to continually
improve a radio once we've purchased it? We should be
doing this ourselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich McCabe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
> " I do not like the idea of paying for software updates which are now
> without something in exchange"
> That is kinda like saying I do not like paying for automobiles when
> is currently free. That may be the case for some, and I am not sure
> why you think you are "entitled to something in exchange". Did I miss
> making the statement that updates will always be free? I honestly do not
> know, so that is a question.
> I would rather fund TenTec with a annual fee so they can do more with what
> already own. How can we as hams expect them to continually improve (for
> free) software for products they have already sold. What is the incentive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tongaloa" <email@example.com>
> To: "Duane Grotophorst" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX"
> <RMcGraw@blomand.net>; "Howard smith" <email@example.com>;
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re: Jupiter firmware problems...NOT! (SO!... )
> > I do not like the idea of paying for software updates which are
> > now free, without something in exchange. That something being
> > a lower price on the hardware and an open source approach to the
> > software so that we could 'roll our own' tweaks. Under a GPL type
> > license, TenTec would benefit from third party effort applied to the
> > code because it is written for their radios!
> > I for one would be all over a <$500 computer controlled receiver
> > built around a single SHARC processor if I had access to the source
> > code to add to and modify at will. I suspect there would be a huge
> > crossover of computer hobbiests who are interested in DSP and TenTec
> > would see huge sales compared to their traditional amateur market.
> > A significant number of these purchasers will become interested
> > enough in ham radio to want a transmitter as well. A rising tide
> > of purchasers for all TT products!
> > If TT does not follow this course, someone else will.
> > Bob wb4mnf
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> TenTec mailing list