Help us with this petition for security on anti-collision systems

On Thu, 28 May 2015 14:22:41 +0200, pcool wrote:

I fully agree with Bob, it is pointless to ask Flarm to open the
protocol. What we need is several other manufacturers selling their own
devices, based on the OGN open software for example. I have not signed
the petition for this reason.

IIRC the reason that FLARM encrypted the protocol was that the OGN crew
were refusing to honour the 'do not track' bit thus exposing the
whereabouts of people who didn't want to be tracked.

In view of that record, why should we trust OGN to do the right thing?

I won't sign the petition either. If DSX want to sell anti-collision kit,
let them drop their NIH attitude and join LX etc in using the de-facto
standard protocol. As long as FLARM sell licences to allow third parties
to use it they are no better or worse than, e.g. Oracle with their
proprietary attitude to Java or the companies who hold patents that
widely used wireless comms standards depend on: think WiFi.

BTW, has the DSX protocol been published? On a Creative Commons or GPL
license?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |