Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Optusnet 
Yep I deserved that, just one little L missing. Must have been the salt lost 
affecting my logic from pushing OJ five times a day for runway changes pre 
launch in January.

Here goes again,

Matt what would be your guess to setup and design a standalone reconfigurable 
FLARM type of system., I was thinking about future ADSB,ACARS,AUTO MET, 
Outlanding advice , soaring spot tracker type of stuff? 

If we had one box that broadcast FLARM type stuff that could utilise cheap 
Comms it might be worth investing in.

And before you all carry on I know of one major (non-oz) airline putting 
soaring loggers in their tail compartments attached to mobile phone technology 
to track APU use.

Righto back to my salt balance 

Justin

Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:42 PM, Mark Fisher  wrote:
> 
> You are making far too much profit out of miniOZ Richard☺
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> peanuts
>> 
>>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Matt,
>>> 
>>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>> 
>>> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
>>> 
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet  
 wrote:
 Hi Matt,
 
 Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
 
 
 Sent from my iPad
 
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  
> wrote:
> 
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, 
> to license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
> 
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM 
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages 
> fall largely outside the technical realm."
> 
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
> 
> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard 
>>> unimplementable without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>> 
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>> 
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for 
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, 
>> so I know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have 
>> individual IP policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket 
>> across the organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent 
>> body pool called MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without 
>> paying license fees for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being 
>> an isolated incident at ISO. There are other completely open standards 
>> such as SEDRIS or X3D that require contributors to license any 
>> contributed patents for zero cost to all implementors. There's, of 
>> course, others in between.
>> 
>> 
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone 
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>> 
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if 
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - 
>> to completely avoid the patents.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>>

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Mark Fisher 
You are making far too much profit out of miniOZ Richard☺

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:

> peanuts
>
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
>> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
>> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
>> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>>
>> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
>> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
>> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
>> largely outside the technical realm."
>>
>> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
>> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>>
 Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
 purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
 without paying license fees, and you know it.

 Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
 these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.

>>>
>>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
 else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
 implementations, by following the text of the standard.

>>>
>>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>>> completely avoid the patents.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>>> G+   WetMorgoth
>>> ---
>>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>>> ---
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>


-- 
Mark Fisher
Managing Director
Swift Performance Equipment
Unit 2, 1472 Boundary Rd
Wacol 4076
Australia
Ph:   +61 7 3879 3005
Fax: +61 7 36076277
www.spe.com.au
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Mark Fisher 
That's a joke .no?

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Optusnet  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
> wrote:
>
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
> largely outside the technical realm."
>
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>
> [1]
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>
>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>>
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>
>>
>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>>
>>
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>> completely avoid the patents.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>


-- 
Mark Fisher
Managing Director
Swift Performance Equipment
Unit 2, 1472 Boundary Rd
Wacol 4076
Australia
Ph:   +61 7 3879 3005
Fax: +61 7 36076277
www.spe.com.au
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Richard Frawley 
peanuts

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
> 
> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet  wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>> 
>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
>>> 
>>> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
>>> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to 
>>> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
>>> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>>> 
>>> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
>>> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM 
>>> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall 
>>> largely outside the technical realm."
>>> 
>>> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
>>> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>>> 
>>> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>>> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>>> 
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable 
> without paying license fees, and you know it.
> 
> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
 
 Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for 
 just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so 
 I know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual 
 IP policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the 
 organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool 
 called MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying 
 license fees for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an 
 isolated incident at ISO. There are other completely open standards such 
 as SEDRIS or X3D that require contributors to license any contributed 
 patents for zero cost to all implementors. There's, of course, others in 
 between.
 
 
> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone 
> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
 
 No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if 
 you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
 completely avoid the patents.
 
 
 -- 
 Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
 Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
 LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
 G+   WetMorgoth
 ---
 "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
 ---
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
 http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Richard Frawley 
it gets to be a moot point.

Unless someone wants to make a cheap enough and open version of comparable 
quality such that we all change over, then Flarm will continue to charge a 
reasonable amount sufficient to keep their business running and protect their 
business accordingly. that's consistent with the commercial world we operate in.

it's less than the price of a vario, it helps to save your life. it's a once 
off purchase. it's a shrinking market that has saturated. think it thru lads.

I am surprised they are not charging a fee for annual software updates. 

anyone involved with Sofware dev and open source will tell you that's no 
panacea either if you think that is an option.











> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> 
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to 
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
> 
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM are 
> weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall 
> largely outside the technical realm."
> 
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
> 
> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable 
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>> 
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>> 
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for just 
>> over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I know 
>> it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP policy 
>> for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the organisation. 
>> In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called MPEG-LA. You 
>> cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees for the 
>> patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at ISO. 
>> There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that require 
>> contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to all 
>> implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>> 
>> 
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
>>> MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>> 
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if you 
>> write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
>> completely avoid the patents.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Nelson Handcock 
I guess crops could be harvested with gliders using ground effect...
perfect practice for comp finishes at Lake Keepit, etc

Thanks & Regards,

Nelson Handcock
0409 149919

http://www.linkedin.com/in/nelsonhandcockaustralia

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Bob Dircks  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
>> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
>> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
>> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>>
>> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
>> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
>> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
>> largely outside the technical realm."
>>
>> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
>> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>>
 Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
 purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
 without paying license fees, and you know it.

 Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
 these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.

>>>
>>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
 else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
 implementations, by following the text of the standard.

>>>
>>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>>> completely avoid the patents.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>>> G+   WetMorgoth
>>> ---
>>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>>> ---
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Bob Dircks 
Hi Matt,

Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?

Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet  wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
> wrote:
>
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
> largely outside the technical realm."
>
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>
> [1]
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>
>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>>
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>
>>
>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>>
>>
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>> completely avoid the patents.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Matthew Scutter 
Amusing and tangentially relevant - FLARM licenses their prediction engine
from ONERA
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=6438492&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP
http://www.onera.fr/en/news/flarm-aircraft-collision-avoidance-system-gliders

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Matthew Scutter 
wrote:

> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
> largely outside the technical realm."
>
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>
> [1]
> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>
>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>>
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
>> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
>> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
>> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
>> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
>> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
>> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
>> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
>> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>>
>>
>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>>
>>
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
>> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
>> completely avoid the patents.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Optusnet 
Hi Matt,

Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?


Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> 
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to 
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
> 
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM are 
> weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall 
> largely outside the technical realm."
> 
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
> 
> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable 
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>> 
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>> 
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for just 
>> over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I know 
>> it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP policy 
>> for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the organisation. 
>> In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called MPEG-LA. You 
>> cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees for the 
>> patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at ISO. 
>> There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that require 
>> contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to all 
>> implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>> 
>> 
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
>>> MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>> 
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if you 
>> write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
>> completely avoid the patents.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Matthew Scutter 
FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run
their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to
license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO
standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.

As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
"it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM
are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall
largely outside the technical realm."

I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a
PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.

[1]
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
[2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:

> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it
>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable
>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>
>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing
>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>
>
> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for
> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I
> know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP
> policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the
> organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called
> MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees
> for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at
> ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that
> require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to
> all implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>
>
> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone
>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG
>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>>
>
> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if
> you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to
> completely avoid the patents.
>
>
> --
> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
> G+   WetMorgoth
> ---
> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
> ---
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Mark Newton 
On Mar 7, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
> 
> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
> 
> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for just 
> over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I know 
> it inside out.

Then you’d know that RAND licensing is an area of active controversy, which 
some standards bodies have taken an active role in, particularly in the data 
communications space.

>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
>> MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
> 
> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if you 
> write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
> completely avoid the patents.

… and yet here I am, sitting in front of a workstation loaded with free 
software, including a rich set of AV tools which support decode and encode in 
mp2, mp3 and mp4, for which no royalties have been paid to anyone.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Justin Couch 

On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:

Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it purchasable, is 
not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable without paying 
license fees, and you know it.

Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing these 
days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.


Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for 
just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, 
so I know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have 
individual IP policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket 
across the organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent 
body pool called MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without 
paying license fees for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being 
an isolated incident at ISO. There are other completely open standards 
such as SEDRIS or X3D that require contributors to license any 
contributed patents for zero cost to all implementors. There's, of 
course, others in between.




I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG implementations, 
by following the text of the standard.


No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if 
you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - 
to completely avoid the patents.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Mark Newton 
On Mar 7, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
> On 7/03/2016 12:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> 
>> It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no 
>> matter where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.
>> 
>> It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.
> 
> Not a good argument to make. This exact same scenario plays out all over the 
> world - even with ISO standards.

Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it purchasable, is 
not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable without paying 
license fees, and you know it.

Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing these 
days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.

And besides: The FLARM line protocol is neither patented nor secret. Everyone 
already knows how it works, the only thing that makes it unimplementable is a 
retrofitted crypto system.

> If you want have a look at a good example, see the various MPEG standards and 
> licensing those (and thus free to air digital TV).

I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG implementations, 
by following the text of the standard.

I cannot do that with FLARM. I know what the line protocol looks like, but I 
don’t have the private keys, so I can’t interoperate.

> Even government-mandated broadcast specs require something that must be 
> licensed from 3rd parties.

Yes: Legislated monopolies behave monopolistically: Huge news, film at 11.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Richard Frawley 
As pointed out by your friend Mike earlier, you are incorrectly barking up the 
wrong tree.

There is nothing stopping anyone from having a go a producing at equivalent 
product for $10 that is better and could easily replace every Flarm on the 
planet with their own solution. 

In time, this might happen if low cost high volume (think Drones) ADSB like 
products (or similar) arrive on the scene. (go search what Google have funded 
in this space)

As that has not happened yet, its probablty not econically attractive to do so.

But you are welcome to try.

In the meantime, Flarm have the rights to protect their business and the good 
service they provide to the community. In fact, its their prime responsibility 
to their shareholders.

If you feel they don't, they by all means and at your cost, go sue them. When 
you have wasted your first $100,000 in lawyers fees please let us all know.














> On 7 Mar 2016, at 12:09 PM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
>> saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.
> 
> That doesn’t give them a right to a monopoly.
> 
>> Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. 
>> I don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.
> 
> Nobody is talking about open sourcing code. We’re talking about standards.
> 
> You know this, because I made the same distinction on Friday.
> 
> Standards are ROUTINELY open. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t have been able to 
> send your email message or receive this one.
> 
>> Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.
> 
> You’re talking about “source”, so you’re having the wrong argument. Nobody 
> cares about FLARM’s source code.
> 
>> Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
>> parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a 
>> competitive market.
> 
> It would be a competitive market if it was possible for a competitor to 
> launch a competing product without paying some of their profit margin to 
> their competitor in the form of a license fee.
> 
> It is not possible to play in this market space at the moment without 
> enriching FLARM.
> 
> It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no 
> matter where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.
> 
> It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread DMcD 
>>Standards are ROUTINELY open

Except if they are national or international standards.

If we want to make something to conform to many standards including
ISO and CE, we must pay for the standards document in the first place
to learn the standard.

IGES and GIF are both standards, but one has to pay to use them.

D
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Justin Couch 

On 7/03/2016 12:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:


It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no matter 
where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.

It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.


Not a good argument to make. This exact same scenario plays out all over 
the world - even with ISO standards. If you want have a look at a good 
example, see the various MPEG standards and licensing those (and thus 
free to air digital TV). Even government-mandated broadcast specs 
require something that must be licensed from 3rd parties.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Mark Newton 
On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
> saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.

That doesn’t give them a right to a monopoly.

> Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. I 
> don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.

Nobody is talking about open sourcing code. We’re talking about standards.

You know this, because I made the same distinction on Friday.

Standards are ROUTINELY open. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t have been able to 
send your email message or receive this one.

> Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.

You’re talking about “source”, so you’re having the wrong argument. Nobody 
cares about FLARM’s source code.

> Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
> parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive 
> market.

It would be a competitive market if it was possible for a competitor to launch 
a competing product without paying some of their profit margin to their 
competitor in the form of a license fee.

It is not possible to play in this market space at the moment without enriching 
FLARM.

It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no matter 
where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream.

It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Richard Frawley 


Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you.

You of all people should be honest in acknowledging the challenging business 
economics that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community.

Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life 
saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.

Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. I 
don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes.

Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply.

Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those 
parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive 
market.





> On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt  
> wrote:
> 
> At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley > > wrote:
>> 
>>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
>>>  
>>> 
>> Smells like bullshit.
>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> "Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements for 
>> privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It 
>> protects the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing the 
>> protocol and system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have serious 
>> consequences for users of proper devices since incorrect data may lead to 
>> undefined behavior on the receiver end. The encryption applied is an 
>> industrial-strength symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all devices 
>> with no performance degradation. Since decryption or interception of 
>> encrypted communication is illegal in most countries, this also ensures the 
>> integrity of the system beyond the technical barriers. Furthermore, the 
>> encryption can be enhanced with software updates if security is 
>> compromised.”
>> 
>> 
>> This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of 
>> trade.
> 
> 
> So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB is illegal as it breaks 
> privacy and security? There's no encryption and every aircraft is identified 
> by a unique code. Note that no individual is identified, just the aircraft, 
> same as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the 
> horizon.
> 
> Let alone the engineering stupidity of implementing an unnecessary encryption 
> scheme which adds complexity and failure modes.
> 
> Where is Flarm company's evidence that other devices ever caused a problem? 
> Apart from cutting in to their sales.
> 
> I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible device having been commercially 
> produced and that was made by DSX. They claimed to have had 40% of the 
> Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm started their encryption games and 
> managed to break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks.
> 
> Figure out the rest for yourselves.
> 
> Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: Let's find the messenger and 
> shoot him.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with 
>> the standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible 
>> implementations. Devices that aren’t “rogue” get to advertise 
>> themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. Comps can specify 
>> that they won’t accept FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the 
>> market’s desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.
>> 
>> Using encryption to lock competitors out of the protocol altogether is going 
>> to be incredibly funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to stop 
>> providing software support to the 20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 
>> 2004 and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM you’ll need to buy another device 
>> from the same company that just shafted the device you’ve already bought. 
>> 
>>- mark
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> Borgelt Instruments - 
>> design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
>  tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: 
> int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soa

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Mike Borgelt 

At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley 
<rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:



http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/


Smells like bullshit.
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf

"Encryption of the radio protocol is a 
consequence of the requirements for privacy and 
security and was thus introduced nearly a decade 
ago: It protects the system from abuse but also 
from rogue devices implementing the protocol and 
system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter 
may have serious consequences for users of 
proper devices since incorrect data may lead to 
undefined behavior on the receiver end. The 
encryption applied is an industrial-strength 
symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all 
devices with no performance degradation. Since 
decryption or interception of encrypted 
communication is illegal in most countries, this 
also ensures the integrity of the system beyond 
the technical barriers. Furthermore, the 
encryption can be enhanced with software updates if security is compromised.”



This is a half-baked technical-sounding 
justification for a restraint of trade.



So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB 
is illegal as it breaks privacy and security? 
There's no encryption and every aircraft is 
identified by a unique code. Note that no 
individual is identified, just the aircraft, same 
as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB goes to the horizon.


Let alone the engineering stupidity of 
implementing an unnecessary encryption scheme 
which adds complexity and failure modes.


Where is Flarm company's evidence that other 
devices ever caused a problem? Apart from cutting in to their sales.


I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible 
device having been commercially produced and that 
was made by DSX. They claimed to have had 40% of 
the Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm 
started their encryption games and managed to 
break the initial Flarm encryption scheme in 3 weeks.


Figure out the rest for yourselves.

Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: 
Let's find the messenger and shoot him.


Mike








Publish the standard, and have independent 
auditors judge compliance with the standard to 
award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for 
compatible implementations. Devices that 
aren’t “rogue” get to advertise themselves 
as FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. 
Comps can specify that they won’t accept 
FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the 
market’s desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.


Using encryption to lock competitors out of the 
protocol altogether is going to be incredibly 
funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to 
stop providing software support to the 
20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 2004 
and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM you’ll 
need to buy another device from the same company 
that just shafted the device you’ve already bought.


   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

2016-03-06 Thread Mark Newton 
On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:

> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
>  
> 
Smells like bullshit.
http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
 


"Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements for 
privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It protects 
the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing the protocol and 
system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have serious consequences 
for users of proper devices since incorrect data may lead to undefined behavior 
on the receiver end. The encryption applied is an industrial-strength symmetric 
cipher, fast enough to be run on all devices with no performance degradation. 
Since decryption or interception of encrypted communication is illegal in most 
countries, this also ensures the integrity of the system beyond the technical 
barriers. Furthermore, the encryption can be enhanced with software updates if 
security is compromised.”

This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of trade.

Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with the 
standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible 
implementations. Devices that aren’t “rogue” get to advertise themselves as 
FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. Comps can specify that they won’t accept 
FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the market’s desire for 
interoperability clean up the raggedy ends.

Using encryption to lock competitors out of the protocol altogether is going to 
be incredibly funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to stop providing 
software support to the 20,000-odd obsolete devices bought between 2004 and 
2010. If you want to keep FLARM you’ll need to buy another device from the same 
company that just shafted the device you’ve already bought. 

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring