Speaker 1: M seventeen responds to the comments that Jonathan Naylor made.
Speaker 1: Jonathan Naylor of MMDVM made about removing the M seventeen
Speaker 1: project from the list of DV modes that MMDVM will
Speaker 1: now offer and support. M seventeen Foundation responded, and we're
Speaker 1: going to read through that today. I said a couple
Speaker 1: of things in that M seventeen video, and I had
Speaker 1: a couple of comments and feedback. Really appreciate you guys
Speaker 1: who are YouTube channel members who I shared the video
Speaker 1: with early. I shared the video with about twenty four
Speaker 1: hours before I made it go live, and you guys
Speaker 1: had some really good feedback on that, which I do appreciate.
Speaker 1: I mean, even if you didn't agree with me, I
Speaker 1: do appreciate the feedback. I had mentioned in that video
Speaker 1: something about not liking open source. It was a specific
Speaker 1: topic I was talking about. So I'm gonna explain a
Speaker 1: little bit more about open source here later in this video.
Speaker 1: So stay tuned really quick, because I'm not against open source.
Speaker 1: I just had some comments about it, and a couple
Speaker 1: of you made some really good points and I want
Speaker 1: to address as well. So this Amateur Radio Daily is
Speaker 1: what I subscribe to. This website right here is what
Speaker 1: I subscribe to, and this is why I got this
Speaker 1: feed first. But then a few of you shared this
Speaker 1: rebuttal with me, and I think that this is very
Speaker 1: good information put out by the M seventeen Foundation. Rebuttical
Speaker 1: rebuttal to Jonathan Taylor G four k LX statements regarding
Speaker 1: M seventeen. So, first of all, I want to say
Speaker 1: very I want to make it very clear that I'm
Speaker 1: just reporting the news here, I'm adding commentary to it. Okay.
Speaker 1: I have always thought the M seventeen project was a
Speaker 1: good project. I've always liked MMDVM, Okay, So I don't
Speaker 1: have any thing against these groups. The old joke goes,
Speaker 1: if you have three Ham radio operators in a city
Speaker 1: living together in the same city, you're going to have
Speaker 1: two different Ham radio clubs in that same city. And
Speaker 1: that is to say that we we tend to like
Speaker 1: to argue. As Ham radio operators, we tend to like
Speaker 1: to argue. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Just argue
Speaker 1: like an adult, and you know it's okay. Difference of
Speaker 1: opinion is a good thing. So I was just offering speculation,
Speaker 1: and I was offering feedback comments to the article put
Speaker 1: out by Jonathan Naylor, and I'm going to do the
Speaker 1: same thing on this article right here. Another article that
Speaker 1: was shared with me is this one from zero Retries
Speaker 1: zero retries dot org. Now I'm not familiar with with
Speaker 1: this website at all. This is an editor is Steve
Speaker 1: strow N eight G and J and I don't personally
Speaker 1: know this person. But he writes MMDVM verses seventeen and
Speaker 1: he says disclaimer, I'm a big fan of both G
Speaker 1: four klex and SP five WWP and the background information,
Speaker 1: his synopsis, how we got to this point, this kind
Speaker 1: of thing. So he gives a lot of commentary and
Speaker 1: opinion pieces on this topic, just like I am doing. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm really trying not to I'm trying not to take size.
Speaker 1: I had a couple of comments on the original video,
Speaker 1: but I'm trying to take side. Let's see what Let's
Speaker 1: see what M venteen Foundation has to say. Here we go.
Speaker 1: On July twelfth, in the Open DV Forum, Jonathan Naylor
Speaker 1: announced the support for M seventeen had been removed from
Speaker 1: the Multi Mode Digital Voice Modem MMDVM package. Thus, when
Speaker 1: this change went into effect, it was a sudden, and
Speaker 1: it was sudden and none announced. Because many MMDVM units
Speaker 1: automatically update with Naylor's updates to MMDVM to automatically patch
Speaker 1: security issues and bugs. Yeah, most of them just update automatically.
Speaker 1: You don't have to click a button or anything. They
Speaker 1: just kind of do it. Naylor's removal of M seventeen
Speaker 1: broke the functionality of MMDVM hotspots and modems such as
Speaker 1: used in repeaters to operate M seventeen. While the M
Speaker 1: seventeen Foundation respects Naylor's decision to make changes to MMDVM,
Speaker 1: which is completely separate project from M seventeen, in this post,
Speaker 1: Naylor made a number of personal, highly opinionated statements directed
Speaker 1: to M seventeen, its principles and technology choices. What follows
Speaker 1: is the M seventeen Foundation's formal response to Naylor's posts.
Speaker 1: Naylor's points I should say by seventeen Foundation board member
Speaker 1: Watjscheck Kasmarski sp five WWP, I really do apologize. I'm
Speaker 1: sure I said your name wrong. No disrespect meant okay.
Speaker 1: And it goes through these points here, and it does
Speaker 1: a counterpoint for several things that Jonathan Naylor said. Here
Speaker 1: is the one of them that I cut this first topic.
Speaker 1: Here is a counterpoint on the grant from ARDC, and
Speaker 1: this was one of the points that I talked about
Speaker 1: in my first video. So M seventeen's response says, we
Speaker 1: in fact received two grants. Links to those those grants,
Speaker 1: both grant budgets were accepted. AIRDC received reports at the
Speaker 1: end of each grant period. Additionally, in twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty four, Kasmarski also submitted monthly reports to
Speaker 1: AIRDC and d ARC as. The second grant was issued
Speaker 1: by DARC cqdl g mbH for the salary of Kazmarski.
Speaker 1: There's no reason for AIRDC to analyze our spending again
Speaker 1: as they have already done so good. Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: Like I said about AARDC in the first video, they
Speaker 1: offer grants to nonprofit organizations. They will not offer me
Speaker 1: a grant because I'm a for profit organization, which is
Speaker 1: totally fine, completely fine. So if anyone ever claimed to
Speaker 1: be a nonprofit and then tried to start to sell
Speaker 1: their item, or their ideas, or their concept or the
Speaker 1: hardware for profit, then there would be some probably some
Speaker 1: legal some legal ramvocations behind that, but that does not
Speaker 1: appear to be what's happened here. So again, I'm just
Speaker 1: reading this article at face value. I read Jonathan Naylor's
Speaker 1: article at face value, and I'm gonna read today's article
Speaker 1: at face value as well. Naylor points out the new
Speaker 1: M seventeen Foundation isn't much better. A number of the
Speaker 1: star warts were excluded from it when it was formed.
Speaker 1: Rather more sadly, the M seventeen Foundation made no mention
Speaker 1: of a number of people organizations that helped them get
Speaker 1: to where they are now. Okay, and I pointed that
Speaker 1: point out in the first in the first video, we
Speaker 1: never removed M seventeen's response. We never removed any credit
Speaker 1: or comment or or commit history from the GitHub, effectively
Speaker 1: making no mention of a number of people that helped him.
Speaker 1: Kesmarski again apologies for the pronunciation, publicly stated that in
Speaker 1: his opinion, the M seventeen hardware offered by CSI is
Speaker 1: slightly overpriced and might not be purchased by many CSI
Speaker 1: Connects Systems who makes the CS seven thy M seventeen
Speaker 1: radio one of the It was the first actual radio
Speaker 1: to transmit M seventeen over RF, and to my knowledge
Speaker 1: it's still the only one doing M seventeen. Today, we'll
Speaker 1: see CSI offers solid, sturdy radios with bulletproof RF circuitry.
Speaker 1: Kesmarski kept saying that too every time someone asked him,
Speaker 1: but this was somehow overlooked by Naylor. M seventeen Foundation
Speaker 1: advertises CSI's M seventeen products pro bono at every hamfare
Speaker 1: or club, meaning we attend. Heard rumors about seventeen looking
Speaker 1: for charging for commercial entities royalty to include their equipment
Speaker 1: and use their logo. I made a comment on that
Speaker 1: that I had heard that rumor like two months ago,
Speaker 1: two months before the recording of that first video, but
Speaker 1: I never said anything about it because there's just a rumor.
Speaker 1: I don't like to participate in rumors if I don't
Speaker 1: have to. But now we've got some written documentation, and
Speaker 1: he even says. Naylor even says, I have heard rumors
Speaker 1: that the M seventeen Foundation is looking at charging M
Speaker 1: Seventeen's response, in our opinion, using gossip is a very
Speaker 1: low rhetoric figure. I agree with that statement. Let us
Speaker 1: focus on facts instead. M seventeen Foundation never required and
Speaker 1: will not require any commercial entity to pay royalties for
Speaker 1: any form of M seventeen protocol use. The use of
Speaker 1: the M seventeen logo will be free for non commercial use.
Speaker 1: We are still figuring out details behind licensing. The logo
Speaker 1: is being registered under Kasmarski's name as a physical person,
Speaker 1: simply verifiable through a WIPO search. All ip rights will
Speaker 1: be transferred to M seventeen Foundation once the process is complete.
Speaker 1: China and US are two pending jurisdictions. The registration is
Speaker 1: a preventative measure mitigating unauthorized use of the logo. M
Speaker 1: seventeen Foundation doesn't believe that registering the M seventeen logo
Speaker 1: breaks any open source philosophy rules. See this Linux Foundation entry.
Speaker 1: In the case, a piece of text is protected, not
Speaker 1: the image. So I had made a statement about not
Speaker 1: liking open source and talking about how open source I've
Speaker 1: known some open source projects to fail, and several of
Speaker 1: you came along and said, well, Linux is an open
Speaker 1: source project and it's running strong, which of course is correct.
Speaker 1: That's an accurate statement. Okay, what I meant by that,
Speaker 1: I don't dislike open source. I just see it as
Speaker 1: something that has a greater potential of failure in many cases,
Speaker 1: maybe not in every case, but in many cases because
Speaker 1: there's no financial backing behind it, people work the developer
Speaker 1: And what I said in the first video was the
Speaker 1: developers work to release leaset this product. Whatever the product is,
Speaker 1: whether it has to do with ham radio or not.
Speaker 1: The developers of an open source project worked very hard
Speaker 1: to release a product and often do not get recognized
Speaker 1: to the greatest potential. It's often a thankless job, just
Speaker 1: like a repeater being a repeater owner is often a
Speaker 1: thankless job to develop this product, and people just complain
Speaker 1: about it. So a lot of so. And I've seen
Speaker 1: firsthand several open source projects that fall flat on their
Speaker 1: face and go nowhere after a couple of years because
Speaker 1: the developers are just sick of working so much, not
Speaker 1: getting any recognition, not getting any thank you, and not
Speaker 1: making money at it. Linux obviously is not does not
Speaker 1: fall into that category of what I just described. But
Speaker 1: let me ask you this, here's a serious question. Okay,
Speaker 1: do you use Linux because it's free or do you
Speaker 1: use Linux because it's the most kick ass operating system
Speaker 1: known to man at this point in time. If they
Speaker 1: started charging for Linux tomorrow, would you buy it? I would?
Speaker 1: I would by Linux to more, I bought Windows. I've
Speaker 1: never used a Mac well long time ago. I bought
Speaker 1: a Mac that had the macOS on it, and it
Speaker 1: was pre macOS ten, a long time ago. I didn't
Speaker 1: like it. I don't think Linux being free is why
Speaker 1: Linux is so popular. I think Linux being free is
Speaker 1: great because it is open source. But I think Linux
Speaker 1: just being a freaking awesome operating system is why it's
Speaker 1: so popular. If it sucked, if it didn't do what
Speaker 1: half of what it was supposed to, if it was
Speaker 1: very cumbersome and hard to use, which is not. There's
Speaker 1: a learning curve to it, obviously, but it's not very cumbersome.
Speaker 1: It's not hard to use once you understand it. I
Speaker 1: don't think it would be nearly as popular even if
Speaker 1: it was free. So it's Linux popular and running most
Speaker 1: of the Internet. Is that because it's free or is
Speaker 1: that because it's just works so well? Naylor goes on
Speaker 1: to say, secondly, technical when started M seventeen was proudly
Speaker 1: created by people who said that they brought fresh thinking
Speaker 1: to the digital voice. I would say that it was
Speaker 1: characterized more as a combination of arrogance and stupidity. Again,
Speaker 1: these are his words, the fact that none of them
Speaker 1: have ever operated a digital mode, let alone studied the
Speaker 1: DV mode was seen as a positive, and M seventeen's response,
Speaker 1: ad Personum Kazmarski studied TETRA, DMR and NXDN and he
Speaker 1: repeats that in basically every interview given along with the
Speaker 1: ac ELP voice codec back in twenty eighteen, right off
Speaker 1: the bat, false statement. Okay, so they're refuting that statement. Okay, okay, good.
Speaker 1: One of the key members designed it like a packet
Speaker 1: radio system, where each block of packet of information needed
Speaker 1: is needed to be received perfectly. In other words, no
Speaker 1: forward air correction. M seventeen's response, This is incorrect. In
Speaker 1: seventeen uses forward air correction schemes similar to those one
Speaker 1: seen in other modes. It would almost have to really
Speaker 1: as a digital voice mode, it would almost have to.
Speaker 1: So he goes on to say a lot more stuff here,
Speaker 1: and they break this down very well. They break down
Speaker 1: Jonathan Naylor's statement, and they reply and refute most of it. Okay,
Speaker 1: say right here, Naylor is incorrect. I thought this response
Speaker 1: was very good. Naylor says, an no orphaned vocoder. It
Speaker 1: doesn't sound very good. Either ambient and it's all his
Speaker 1: forms consider are sound considerably better. M. Seventeen's response is,
Speaker 1: we regard it doesn't sound very good either, end quote
Speaker 1: as Naylor's personal opinion, and thus won't discuss. That's taking
Speaker 1: the high road. I respect that, Okay. I get a
Speaker 1: lot of people saying, well, DMR sounds so much better
Speaker 1: than fusion, or fusion sounds so much better than DMR,
Speaker 1: or P twenty five sounds better than everything. That's a
Speaker 1: matter of your opinion, because guess what DMR is. Also
Speaker 1: See if people call System fusion C FOURFL, and it is,
Speaker 1: it's four level FSK four level frequency shift keying modulation
Speaker 1: over FM. It is C four FM, But so is DMR.
Speaker 1: DMR is also C four FM. Fusion makes a better
Speaker 1: radio than a lot of the Chinese vendors, not all
Speaker 1: of them, but a lot of the Chinese vendors. So
Speaker 1: sometimes of the quality of signal is just simply because
Speaker 1: you're talking on a fusion radio on System Fusion. But effectively,
Speaker 1: if you listen to all of these modes P twenty
Speaker 1: five phase one even, but P twenty five phase two
Speaker 1: certainly P twenty five Phase two, DMR or system fusion.
Speaker 1: They're almost all exactly the same as far as modulation
Speaker 1: and codec goes. Differences can vary in manufacture of radios, Yes,
Speaker 1: but the mode itself sounds almost exactly the same to me. Anyway,
Speaker 1: You may not agree, and that's okay, and that's what
Speaker 1: they're saying here as well. Now, if you are using
Speaker 1: system fusion or DMR or even M seventeen, if you're
Speaker 1: interested in checking out a net for any of these modes,
Speaker 1: I highly recommend ham dot Live. Check out ham dot
Speaker 1: Live on their website. You can run a net and
Speaker 1: watch nets being run for free on this web based
Speaker 1: logging platform that works on all systems. Yes, it will
Speaker 1: work on Mac. Yes it will work on Unix because
Speaker 1: it's all web based. Check out ham dot live. You
Speaker 1: can watch other people check in, you can see who's
Speaker 1: waiting in line check in, you can check in yourself.
Speaker 1: You can follow along with any net where the net
Speaker 1: control operator uses ham dot live to log and keep
Speaker 1: track of the net. Ham dot Live is the sponsor
Speaker 1: of today's video. They've been a sponsor of this series
Speaker 1: for several months now. I really thank Sean. Check out
Speaker 1: the video interview I did with him A few months back,
Speaker 1: and thank you ham dot live for supporting the channel.
Speaker 1: Another aspect here is Naylor says the wrong type of
Speaker 1: fec Ford error correction applied badly and M seventeen's response
Speaker 1: this technical point needs some more detail. Assuming nahmor means
Speaker 1: the convolutional encoder used in seventeen, there are two approaches
Speaker 1: if it comes to use zero filled and tail biting.
Speaker 1: M seventeen uses the former, as it makes sure that
Speaker 1: the end of the trellis always ends at a known state.
Speaker 1: Tail biting offers better coding rates for short blocks of data,
Speaker 1: but our encoder payloads are two hundred and seventy bits,
Speaker 1: he said. Naylor says it shouldn't really be a problem
Speaker 1: since SM seventeen has said that my software isn't important.
Speaker 1: Seventeen response, please provide substantive references to this statement my
Speaker 1: software isn't important? Where? When? And who? So? In other words,
Speaker 1: to me that says that M seventeen is saying, we
Speaker 1: never said that. Provide proof that we said that where
Speaker 1: is it? And then one more time they kind this
Speaker 1: is the last one. This is the last statement. Naylor
Speaker 1: says there is a need for an open source DV
Speaker 1: mode However, M seventeen is not that mode. M seventeen's
Speaker 1: response is that's Naylor's opinion, and thus we have no comment.
Speaker 1: The conclusion reads as as the above information reflects. M
Speaker 1: seventeen Foundation considers most of Naylor's administrative and technical criticisms invalid.
Speaker 1: Naylor is, of course entitled to his own opinions, technical
Speaker 1: and otherwise, but most of his comments regarding M seventeen
Speaker 1: our opinions, not many statements of fact, And again that's
Speaker 1: the opinion of the M seventeen Foundation. So you got
Speaker 1: three Hams living in the town, and you're gonna have
Speaker 1: two Ham radio clubs. I don't know what, you know what,
Speaker 1: there's probably something that happened that we don't know about.
Speaker 1: What made What makes Jonathan Naylor so anti M seventeen
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, He doesn't really say, I mean,
Speaker 1: he kind of gives details. He gives, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: is his stuff that is like, why did you wait
Speaker 1: till now? If all of this is what you're saying
Speaker 1: is true, why did you wait till now? Two years
Speaker 1: into the pro two three years however long it's been
Speaker 1: into the project to say, nobody don't want to include
Speaker 1: that anymore. But there's more to the story than we're
Speaker 1: being told here, which is okay, you know, it may
Speaker 1: not be our business, it may not be my business. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just commenting on an article I found, But I
Speaker 1: would like to know do you guys tend to I
Speaker 1: think the reading through the comments of the first video,
Speaker 1: I think most of you probably tended to side with
Speaker 1: them seventeen on this, not to side with MMDVM. So
Speaker 1: what do you think? Are you siding with MMDVM or
Speaker 1: are you siding with them seventeen? Because if M seventeen
Speaker 1: has followed all of the stipulations from the grant they
Speaker 1: got from AARDC, which it seems like they have, and
Speaker 1: they're still in good standing with THEIRDC, and they're still
Speaker 1: following through on their promises to make a digital voice
Speaker 1: CODEC open source with Kodek two, seems to me like
Speaker 1: they are doing exactly what they should be doing. So
Speaker 1: why the turmoil? What caused all this? I don't know.
Speaker 1: If you know, put a comment in the video below.
Speaker 1: Thanks for watching today.