From: "Joel Kolstad" on Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:36 pm

wrote in message

In Roy's case on EZNEC, he put in a lot of work in translation
of (totally copyable by law) U.S. government work into a useful
program of antenna analysis.

Given that Roy is alive and well (I saw him walking around in Rickreal on
Saturday!) and supporting/selling his product, I can think of no
rationalization whatsoever whereby pirating EZNEC could be considered
"acceptable." Now, 40 years from now when the situation has changed, I may
feel quite differently.

Ahem, "40 years from now" may see a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT pardigm
for ALL of "radio!" "Radio" - as a communications medium is only
110 years old...look back to how it was back in 1896 with NO
true active devices. :-)


Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table.

THIS is the real world. There's no "special case" that justifies
that idealistic rationalization you made...it is circular logic in
itself...in the real world.

Huh? My point was only that -- regardless of what I or others may rationalize
and therefore use to relieve our consciouses while we break some law --
original works will continue to be generated so long as there's some sort of
income to be derived in doing so. I do agree that there's less and less
income to be derived if more and more people go around rationalizing
piracy/stealing/etc. in general, and I personally find it a very distrubing
trend that so many people today don't think twice about copying
software/music/movies/etc.

"Copying" is a way to keep one's "bread on the table" without
putting that "bread" on someone else's table. The general
rationalization is that it hurts no one (physically) and
intellectual property purloining doesn't involve tangible,
physical things (laws on stealing were based on material
objects taken). As Roy remarked, without the protection on
immaterial property (ideas, creations), there would be NO
impetus originate something new...no "ROI" or Return On
Investment of new development.


EZNEC is an example that applies here. The work that Roy did on
translation of (free) code, cleaning it up, making it presentable
in a meaningful manner to users, was considerable, much more so
than just getting the original program code to work. Why should
Roy give away such effort?

I don't see any reason he should, unless he chooses too. Although it's
interesting to contemplate that EZNEC probably wouldn't exist if it weren't
for the NEC core that was developed with taxpayer dollars...

We wouldn't have SPICE derivatives if it wasn't for the efforts
of the University of California at Berkeley development group
deciding it should be available "free." SPICE itself wouldn't
have existed without the original, much older predecessor ECAP
done by IBM (not exactly free since the FORTRAN code managed to
"migrate" out and be distributed by copiers back in the 50s.
Ohio State's version (OSUCAD) code was published in a book on
the subject by two OSU professors. [irrelevant trivia fact but
illustrates just one of many, many works that have all sprung
from the original ECAP pioneering work on circuit analysis]

The NEC core cranks out numbers, numbers, numbers. [just as
ECAP did on circuit analysis] NO intuitive "feel" for the
results to most folks. The GRAPHICS and organized tabulations
had to be done to make them USEFUL for others. That work is
important but usually overlooked.

... perhaps the
ultimate outcome of piracy running rampant will be that software development
will then only be performed by government-employed programmers? Or hobbyists
with no expectation whatsoever of monetary gain from their efforts? I think
that'd be a horrible situation, although there are plenty of people out there
who firmly believe that most all software should be produced under such a
model. :-(

I think it will come about as nearly ALL OTHER THINGS in radio
and electronics...via the competitive marketplace. The amount
of WORK involved to develop something almost demands some kind
of ROI to justify it to the developer/innovator.

If we look at what exists now, we get blase' about all the effort
involved to make a product (almost as if "it always existed...")
available for others to use. Too many of us take the THINGS we
have for granted.

... very little
new software comes out of the government today. Why is it that software like
OpenOffice has to be developed by 100% volunteers rather than by our
government? If you look at universities today, most of the EDA software they
use is commercial in nature (donated or provided at a substantially reduced
price by the manufacturer) rather than anything written in-house.

Very little actual "government software" was ever done, nearly
all was hired, contracted outside work. [see the FBI's debacle
over a national database featured in SPECTRUM a few months back]
What "the universities" do is NOT NECESSARILY what goes on in
the rest of the world! True, despite the self-promoting PR of
"the universities!"

Note: I used to be a member of SIGGRAPH when I was interested
in graphics and animation. The "universities" did some
pioneering work there, but the professional animators and
graphics folks have gone wayyyyyy beyond that. One can see
it everyday on television, principally in advertising spots.

SPICE didn't suddenly spring out of nowhere at Berkeley...it had
many, many predecessors. That it became the de facto circuit
analysis program in use anywhere in electronics is BECAUSE the
core was free to use. [I could make a big list out of those
predecessors, but that's irrelevant also here]

Heck, back
when Roy worked at Tektronix, my understanding was that TekSPICE was the
simulation program of the day, whereas now Tek has also switched to commercial
SPICE simulators and is very close to completely phasing out the usage of
TekSPICE... kinda sad, in a way.

Before about 1975 there was VERY LITTLE "everyday" use of computer
aided design outside of IC development in the electronics industry.
Computer time was very expensive and had to be justified to the
bean counters (been there, done that, made lots of bean soup).

Tektronix was an innovator in electronics from its start. That
by itself is no right for their forever claiming such things as
the market is the driving force that rules the future. When
the market is using SPICE (almost universally), then they too
must use it in order to compete.

Without the protection of the copyright law, Microsoft could
never have made that Big Break that started their humongous
incoming cash flow.

I think that's somewhat speculative. :-) ...but I don't really know enough of
Microsoft's history to say for certain.

Not speculation, fact, stated in several books on their history
and the TV movie comparing Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. MS got
their Big Break at an IBM conference room in Boca Raton back
in the very late 1970s. They had the IP lock on the OS and
could then parlay that into their enormous fortune. MS took
advantage of that and applied some good sales tactics to wind
up a virtual monopolist in operating systems of PCs.

As far as IP protection on radio hobby magazines, that's
still up in the air for many. If everyone wants to sit
around and rebuild the regenerative receiver or "design"
two-tube (or teeny two-transistor) transmitters, fine, but
that is just re-inventing the wheel for the nth time. Much
of the output of the radio hobbyist press (other than new
product info squibs and "reviews") is the publishers
essentially copying their own old works...for their own
profit. [the ARRL Handbook has been such for decades, most
of their content already published in ARRL works prior...it
makes money for the ARRL to keep the organization alive]

Yes, yes, I understand that some don't like ARRL criticized,
which is not good, but they have no real competitor in the
USA amateur radio community and are NOT "perfect." :-)

If we don't have IP protection, radio hobbyists will still be
at least a half-century behind in most efforts of "radio,"
the practitioners busy, busy with nostalgic recollection of
"the good old days" that were not that "good," just
fascinating to individuals (like me) of a long time ago.
See "Electric Radio" magazine (not on newsstands, available
only by subscription...they have a website for getting such
subscriptions), a good magazine but covering only the
technology of yesterday (when tubes were the thing). My
personal difference with that is that I'm looking forward
to tomorrow a LOT more, can't wait to see the new stuff
that's about to show up soon. Exciting stuff to me in
my racket...and home workshop.