SmartSDR Third Party Program - Approval Progam?

Steve K9ZW

In taking a look at the FreeDV Waveform, I ended up doing a search through this community, revisited a decent write up in the SmartSDR Manual I'd otherwise forgotten about, did a couple web searches, and perhaps gathered information from 15-20 sources.

Almost none of the information was tagged for what version of the Waveform add-in it was referencing, and in all honestly lot of what I found was not very useful as it applied to other implementations of FreeDV or features not yet ready for the SmartSDR add-in.

Further confusing me was the FRS confusion of who was "responsible" for the FreeDV Waveform add-in?  I think that there were two questions, not one, that needed answering got missed - obviously the FreeDV Team (thank you!) are the point of contact for the spec, codec and so on, but the implementation as a SmartSDR add-in they say isn't the FreeDV Team's work. 

Another layer confusion is the stance that it is a Third-Party add-in, perhaps even experimental, and an at-your-own-risk add-in, and then the detailed directions on installation, use and limitations only appear in the official FRS SmartSDR software manual.  One can't help of thinking of the "Does She or Doesn't She?" old TV commercials.

With that background here are my simple suggestions:

1. Any add-in FRS offers downloadable from their website should include some sort of release notes or a version specific Read-Me-First file.  The developer of the add-in would be responsible for compiling the content and FRS only obligation would be to confirm it was there (unless FRS wanted to review the content and perhaps insist on a Third Party set of document standards like Identity, Contact Information, version identity, change-log, and not-a-FRS product disclaimer).

2. An add-in could be submitted to FRS for distribution to a volunteer test team, which if review hit certain standards that add-in could add a "Tested and We Didn't Break Anything, FRS Listed" sort of logo and different disclaimer to their product.  These add-ins shouldn't be FRS's responsibility, but would simply be acknowledged as ones tested and found to be working good.  The same minimums for any download offered from FRS's website would apply and be expanded.

3. A higher level FRS SmartSDR Accepted 'co-branding' could also be considered for products that a formal FRS review and approval are negotiated between the developers and FRS, representing products highly integrated with SmartSDR with FRS's blessing.  This would be an expansion of the "Tested and We Didn't Break Anything" levels requirements.

End goal - give end users a reference with basic standard information as a minimum with anything downloadable from FRS, and offer a hobbyist and a professional software vetting & approval program for add-ins.

73

Steve K9ZW

Steve K9ZW

Or would it make more sense to have FRS only have available for download official FRS software, eliminating the need for a program?

73

Steve K9ZW

Bob G W1GLV

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. If its on the FRS site, to me it means that it has been approved for general distribution. The rest of it is just mumbo jumbo no one reads except for geaks.

Steve K9ZW

Bob, perhaps but as the add-ins and other software could potentially alter or even damage our rigs, wouldn't make sense to have some sort of program?

That thought doesn't even touch on some of the risks from incompatible combinations/versions and even exploits.

Trying to think wider base of users than those with great skills.

73

Steve K9ZW

Bob G W1GLV

Sorry,I forgot about third party developers. Good point, how do you protect your investment?