[Elecraft] [K3] ALC and JTDX

[Jim Brown]

On Thu,4/13/2017 12:13 PM, Samuel Cartinhour wrote:
> I recently decided to try JTDX (v 1.7.0), a derivative of the popular WSJT-X software by Joe Taylor.

Why would you want to do that? WSJT in all of its forms is K1JT's 
invention, the code is written by a team of programmers under Joe's 
direction, and is under constant development to improve its performance 
and incorporate new digital modes optimized for different purposes.

The latest released version (fully compiled, ready to run) was released 
about six months ago, and I'm seeing greatly improved decoding 
(occasionally as low as -28 dB) and even two decodes on the same tone 
frequency! In-progress versions can be downloaded from code form, but 
must be complied by the user. No fun unless you're a computer geek. :)

This is what K1JT wrote on the WSJT Developer's email reflector a month 
or so ago to the JTDX author.

Jim K9YC

-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -

While I have your attention, I must remind you of obligations you
assumed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) when you copied the
source code of WSJT-X, made some changes, and renamed it as
"JTDX vXX.X ... by UA3DJY".

1. Compliance with GPL requires that a derivative work (such as JTDX)
must be licensed in a compatible manner.  Just saying "It is open source
software distributed under the GPL v3 license" is not enough.

Apparently a significant fraction of JTDX distribution takes place from
the web sitehttp://jt65-dx.com/download/wsjtx-ua3djy.html  .

2. I see nothing on that web site mentioning any license requirement.

3. I see a JTDX screen shot in which the main window title is given as
"WSJT-X v1.7.0-devel JTDX v16.6 ... by UA3DJY."  We have never released
a program called "WSJT-X v1.7.0-devel", so I would not expect to see
such a designation on a derivative work.

4. Describing JTDX as "by UA3DJY" is surely misleading, and a violation
of the copyrights on our code.  Probably >90% of code in your derivative
work was written by someone other than yourself.

6. Finally: if you were truly committed to the Free Open Source Software
(FOSS) philosophy, I would expect your development work to be organized
in a way so that can give back to, as well as take from, the amateur
software development community.  I can see no evidence that you are
doing this, for example with an open source-code repository.

	-- 73, Joe, K1JT