2
$\begingroup$

Which currently popular digital/SDR modes do not require a pre-compiled library or pre-written source code? (e.g. has actually been used for QSOs as implemented from specification or sufficiently complete description by other than the original developer?)

(For purposes of this question, C source code is not considered a specification, unless the comments alone allow re-implementation in another programming language. Automatic translation of FORTRAN to C is not considered a specification. The possibility of reverse engineering some software library is also not considered a specification of the digital mode. Assuming an non-existent spec could potentially be written is not considered a specification (unless you can and have written it!).

$\endgroup$
20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you asking which currently popular digital modes have more than one existing software implementation, or which such modes have sufficient specifications to allow new implementations? I can imagine that there might be sufficiently-specified modes that currently only have a single software implementation. $\endgroup$
    – rclocher3
    Jan 9, 2020 at 17:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One might even question whether a digital mode with a single software implementation, and no public spec is even legal to use in amateur bands. It could be interpreted as an encryption with the undocumented software blob as the public key. $\endgroup$
    – hotpaw2
    Jan 9, 2020 at 19:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @hotpaw2 as I read the question and your comments here, would it be appropriate to change the question title to "Which digital modes are formally specified sufficiently for re-implementation?" $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2020 at 16:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, why would publicly available source code not count as a specification? It's precise, accurate, and available: everything one could want in a spec. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2020 at 16:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ especially, when you reverse engineer a transmitter, you only learn to transmit the same subset of the actual standard. That doesn't allow you to write a receiver for all possible standards-compliant transmissions. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2020 at 17:00

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .