OpenEar: An Easy to Use Windows TETRA Voice Decoder
A new TETRA voice decoder called "OpenEar" has just been released. The program is a standalone Windows app that directly connects to an RTL-SDR. Decoding a TETRA voice signal is as simple as opening the program, tuning to the TETRA frequency and clicking on the signal. With good signal strength voice comes through very clearly. CPU usage on our PC is also minimal.
The program source is currently not available as the author notes that he only intends to release it as open source in the future once the project is completed, and right now this is only the first early release. Right now the program is just an .exe with a few .dlls. You'll need to first install the Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable Package linked in the Git readme. Just in case, we virus scanned the exe and tested the program in Sandboxie. It appears to be clean, and it works as intended.
In the future the author hopes to support many more protocols such as DMR, MPT1327, ACARS, AIR, GSM and more. In order to support his work he is asking for Bitcoin donations, and the donations link can be found on the Git readme.
UPDATE 1: If you're getting missing dll errors and you already installed the Visual C++ Redistributable, try downloading the missing dll's from dll-files.com. There should only be about 5 missing.
UPDATE 2: As pointed out in the comments by Steve M. from Osmocom, this software may be in violation of several GPL licences as no source code has been released and it appears to rely on GPL code and libraries. Please take this into account.
UPDATE 3: As per update 2, the author has decided to temporarily disable the TETRA functionality pending a rewrite of the code that he will complete within one to two months). Instead he has added DMR decoding.
LOL. No.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. As I said before, if such capability was out there, it would be being used, every day by enthusiasts. The case is, it’s simply not. It’s simply untraceable and why…. Makes you wonder.
If it’s out there, release it instead of hiding behind horse 💩 Everyone says how easy it is to decode, yet no one has the minerals to prove it. The only way for enthusiasts is to purchase a Moto similar radio, which really bugs me if for example the programs out there.
Oh and to add, his email price list has changed yet again! Seems he changes the price as much as he comments on here. That’s if it is a he. Anyway. Time will tell.
Loved that comment, well said VictorOne
Guys, don’t feed the trolls, they are sufficiently plentiful here…
Let them starve !
Says Anonymous. 🤦♂️
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us
… sound like a twat to me… unless, that is, Liam Neesan had made an appearance. 🤷♂️
Problem is because Some people can copy or write there own software and the majority of people cant they take advatage of this, this software in my opinion needs a total re write as its breaking laws and I am glad that some one also has the same outlook on it as me. we always get people coming back saying we are wrong etc but am used to that as people are blind when it comes to the truth or when they are getting somthing out of it for themselfs
i do not understand your meant! you can search on net and find many many free software without code!
how you can detect which of them used which codes! or how you can find that really they used others codes or not? you said that you never used free software without code!
It seems that you usually believe everything you hear without research or that you are the same person with a new name!!
i have suggestion for you, please try to spend your time to kill free software pages or force them to publish their codes! How can you judge when you have no information about the history of this software? If you can make an example or think more in speaking, yes i know some people like to comment on everything without any investigation, they can comment about weather in 6:00pm and comment about free software on 6:05 pm good job continue that, and note if creating or porting new software is possible by copying it must be many software like openear before it, then their codes is not usable for creating software, i removed software from pages and wait until another body to creates another programs like this, and you can be glad that some ones like you prevent to others using free software! i think i waste my time on this field
@moneriomaa: “Free Software” is about freedom, not about “free of charge to download”. The Freedom of Free Software includes the freedom to _modify_ the software, for which source code availability is fundamental. See Free Software at wikipedia, if you really should not be aware of that by now.
What you call “Free software” in your paragraph above is Freeware, i.e. software distributed free of charge in binary form, without any source code.. It has _nothing_ to do with Free Software!
For many developers who spend weeks, months or years of their lives in writing Free / Open Source Sofware (FOSS), the key motivation is that forever, this software, and any modifications/derivatives of it, will be available in source code form to anyone. This is why they release their code under a so-caled “copyleft” license, such as the GPL or AGPL.
Creating derivative works of such software (such as, for example, librtlsdr or osmo-tetra) is a copyright infringement _unless_ you follow the license text. And that license text means (among other things): You have to provide the complete and corresponding source code!
Full Disclosure: I am the main developer of osmo-tetra, which was illegally used in openear. I’m also the person who filed the DMCA complaint with github, because @monerioma would not otherwise stop using it in his non-free-software openear. I coincidentially also am the founder of gpl-violations.org, where I have demonstrated repeatedly that the terms of the GNU GPLv2 can be enforced in and out of court even against large multi-national corporations. Everybody using open source software must follow the license terms. And in caes of GPL/AGPL, that means: You must provide the complete and corresponding source code.
So why dont you provide us decoder/decryption for basic privacy mode motorola, hytrra for free, if you are so smart?
What about tetra???
i am not agree with you in some points, i did not modify to your code or your team code! openear is not laboratory codes that needs library or some packages or compiling procedures! i designed openear from more than decade experiences on comint, it is not for developer it is for users, some times users think ok openear created with copy and paste, It has been stolen,… finally i removed it for all users that needs download linux iso and all packages and libraries with conflict and … then they can compile it and find errors and try to solve it, i think it is better for all challengers, about tetra I designed my own 8psk demodulator (changed msg decision to pi/4dqsk) it is not burst demodulator and it is fix continues demodulator, then it is not for you or your team, you or your team used linux library if i remembered correct its name is gnuradio but i did not use it because it is hard for using in windows complier for easy openear software i used my own demodulator you and you user of team can check it easily by output of signal , then it is about bit process and frame and coding in first version before i remove it from openear, yes i used other projects but i removed it to change completely used code and note that tetra is open documented and you and your team is not creator of Tetra you and your team studied those documents and why others can not?! , and about vocoder it is completely used from etsi or itu (i can not remember it now) and not from your project.
some people makes their world limitation to staying on challenges, because They are satisfied with this and feel a sense of progress but i have no benefit to share openear with others also with challenges of others, it is funny state that i try to create software that user can easily uses it by click and also i must challenges with others, really I was bothered, anyway i removed software from public domain and then no body can request for binary or code!
It’s sad you did not comment at all on the
The discussion is not about the quality of software. osmo-tetra is well known to be outdated and incomplete. It was an interesting research/hack at the time. However, anyone, including you, is always more than welcome to contribute any improvements. That is what free software is all about: About collaborative development, where everyone shares all of his work with everyone else. Nobody neds to reinvent the wheel, “we all stand on the shoulders of giants”.
Creating a proprietary derivative is exactly the opposite: It is grave disrespect to the original authors.
Nobody has contested that anyone can take the ETSI TETRA specifications and create a TETRA implementation that is independent from osom-tetra. But then in such an implementation, there obviously cannot be any code from osmo-tetra 😛
Funny you discuss in riddles interlaced with your own biases that are ‘above the law’s or decency. Using Bitcoin to hide your true identity won’t work for long, eventually you will be identified.
Can you kindly give a straight answer to questions put to you above.
it is funny really, i think you do not know anything about openear!
else you must know that openear is free, paid version is only for decryption that there is no source code on net, This is unique, all challenges about tetra and open-source problem, not for paid version that works for decryption.
there is no issue for owner decided sale his product in bitcoin, what is your problem with this?!!
there is no illegal, there is many paid software for decryption you can find with search on net!
there is no kindly for people that prevent others to use free softwares because they forced owners without kindly, and if you have little experience on programming and comint you can see that i answered all, i removed software please spend (waste) your time to challenging with others
i unsubscribe this post to be free from some old-mind comments
I wish you all the best…
So…. Has anyone made or got any FREE software for decrypting Moto BP using DSD+ FL…. Come on, appreciate it’s like rocking horse 💩 but please, someone!
OpenEar is a load of 💩 also, way better tetra trunk/ decoders out there. He tried, and he failed.
Oh really? Open ear is only one software for decryption… so where you have found out, that it’s garbage. Tell us any other software, that could do that????
OpenEar DOES NOT decrypt any form of privacy, it’s a scam. The YT clips are fraud, he uses a handheld under the desk. OpenEar does NOT decrypt. It’s a scam. There is NOTHING to prove it’s existence via the programme, other than one can get hold of a copy of we pay Bitcoin! LoL to that!
Google “Tetra MBARS”. That tetra decoder is way more better than OpenEar, gives detailed information about the user plus other information. OpenEar does nothing other than eat your CPU.
If you have the BP decrypt programme, then issue it or prove it, until then bugger off.
OpenEar is a fraud. You can tell that just by reading all the above, how this person took the programme down etc. It’s a load of 💩
Hey Mate, maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong, but JUST for the sake of the argument, do you have any proof to back up your bold claim ?
(I don’t care of OpenEar, I’m running way stronger crypto than Moto BP on my personal LMR stuff, and as you stated, there’s way better decoding programs for TETRA out there; but I can’t let you just spewing claims without proof for supporting them…)
Ya know , you ask random strangers to prove that OpenEar decryption works, so don’t be suprised if some other random stranger ask you to prove that it, in fact, does NOT work…
Any claim to support the hypothesis of the “handheld under the table” trick ?
For all we know, OpenEar’s dev can be a liar (from your PoV), or maybe YOU (from others PoV) are the liar running a smear campaign, Dude…
If you have the BP decrypt programme, then prove it’s a scam, until then bugger off…
Haha. Whoops! Have I touched a nerve! What amazes me so much is the enormous “support” your giving to this “package” 🤨… wonder why that is….
It’s fake. No one, I repeat, no one has anything out there with ability to decrypt Moto BP, believe me, I know.
Again, OpenEar, even after paying 1200$ in Bitcoin, does not work. It’s fake.
If it wasn’t fake then trust me, Moneriomaa would be very wealthy living on an island from sales. Not hiding behind an outdated clip, a profile…. 🤷♂️
I’ll post and post about this fake product on every platform and every group until I’m proven wrong so, sadly I won’t be buggering off anywhere.
It’s fake. Now rather than me buggering off, why don’t you jog on and create a new profile to write your next reply.
I guess you’re not a native English speaker ? Probably French, given your spelling of “program” ?
Sorry, some subtle nuances in my previous message may have been lost in translation…
It’s quite difficult to convey the “tone” of an idea in a written conversation, so I’ll try to keep things simple.
Rest assured, no nerves to hit here; I was just randomly browsing the last comments in the RTL-SDR frontpage and happened to stumble on yours, which grasped my attention.
As stated, I’m not “Pro” or “Anti”-OpenEar.
In fact I’m not “OpenEar-something” at all, I don’t care about this semi-obscure software, and I don’t give “support” to this “package” as there’s WAYYY better solutions out there.
[Still I will NOT spit on the Dev for trying to make a multimode decoder with some out of the box thinking, that’s always commendable. That being said, shame on him if he really obfuscated some opensource code to make his own.]
What interest me, here and now, is how you convey your argument as it is more akin to a sophism than a syllogism…
In summary, this software doesn’t interest me, what interest me is your way of thinking.
You ask people to prove this software is working as intended, but you, yourself, don’t want to prove that it is not working. That’s inconsistent. You should know that there’s big differences between opinions and facts ! You may be entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Neither I and (I believe) you have the paid BP-decryption software, so everything we’ll say is nothing more than an educated guess for a theorical argument… If you have purchased the paid version and it doesn’t work as intended, well, disregard my last sentence but please post a proof of that (on YT for exemple)…
If it’s really fake, in this case I commend you for warning others, but please provide positive evidence, otherwise nothing can prove that you are not in fact a liar running a smear campaign against OpenEar… See the duality here ? With proof, I’ll glady repeat to other the fact that it’s a scam and help spread the awareness, otherwise you may well be a random Internet Troll…
“It’s fake. No one, I repeat, no one has anything out there with ability to decrypt Moto BP, believe me, I know.” : You’re mislead, you really think that a stupid XOR with 255 keystreams possible is not utterly broken ? DES 56 (64 with parity), which is way more secure than even Moto EP, is broken since the late 90’s you know… (EFF deepcrack). Well ! It’s probably more simple to crack Motorola BP than to scam people with a fake software; but you may never know, maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong…
“Moneriomaa would be very wealthy living on an island from sales” : Well, maybe you’re right ! But you’re telling me the Motorola DMR encryption cracking algorithm I did for my employer way back then should have provided me with an enormous amout of money ? Well shit ! I know I shouldn’t have applied for a Govt job !
I guess you probably believe that Moto EP-RC4 40 is monstruously secure ?! You know how WEP is utterly broken, right ?! Same shit here, and DMR only provide a measly 32-bit of IV with a ghetto frame-stealing way of doing it, instead of the 64-bit IV in every other LDU in the APCO-25 standard… You’re simply delusional… Gimme AES256 P-25 every day of the week, or even better, 16kbps CVSD stuff !
I believe that was in France that until recently, the law prohibited any citizen use of cryptography (even Internet SSL !) What a clusterfuck ! No wonder we are more advanced in this domain than you…
You can believe what you want, but facts are here to stay. As stated by our famous Astrophysicist Neil dG Tyson :”The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it” and, if I may add, Science include Maths and so Cryptography and code breaking… Have a look at Turing’s work and then come back to discuss here when you’ve educated yourself.
LOL. I think your missing the point. Perhaps if your so knowledgeable you yourself could point us users in the direction of, how too? You’ve included some good information in the post, I appreciate that. What I’m trying to do, like thousands of users is find a cheerful way to decrypt moto bp, ep whatever on DSD+ FL. There are thousands of people whom all seem to know about doing it but none of those will share such information and I find that frustrating. The other thing I find frustrating is the idiot, OpenEar, who may well have had a decryption type tool is making statements that it will be released, then it won’t, then it will, for $400, the $600 then €1400, $4000 and today, I believe it’s priced at $7000. What a knob!
If ANYONE has software or advice on how to decrypt moto bp etc using a dongle and DSD+ FL, please, please I beg you, send it to me.
Until then, assumptions or not, it doesn’t exist and any claims to say it does, well it’s just nonsense.
“Until then, assumptions or not, it doesn’t exist and any claims to say it does, well it’s just nonsense”
Tell that to Northrop-Grumman, L3Harris, Thales, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Rohde & Schwarz, General Dynamics, COMINT-Consulting or any other company making SIGINT/EW solutions !
You want to freely use a COMINT (encryption-cracking capable) software ? Join the Army and ask for a job in a SIGINT/COMINT Unit ! Until then, bugger off !
Not buggering off anywhere, melt. Again, proves to show that this alleged crap offered by OpenEar isn’t nor will ever be available in the public domain… that is unless the maker of OpenEar and every other alleged genus you earlier claimed has worked, and I quote, for the “Army” 😂😂😂
Even now, still no closer to a conclusive answer about the possibilities of decryption using DSD+ so until then, you bugger off back up Monos arse, or create another profile to reply on if the fraudster is indeed YOU.
Prat. 🤦♂️
Ya know mate, I’m not the same guy as below, which himself named his account [NOT the same guy as above ! (Jim ?!)]
Learn to spell please, it’s painful to try to have a constructive argument if you can’t speak 2 words of proper English…
Do you tell everybody on the internet to “bugger off back up somebody else butt” ?
I’m not very inclined to answer to rude people, but still, we have an interesting discussion so I’ll develop some more :
-“I think your missing the point” : then tell me what the point is please ?
-“Perhaps if your so knowledgeable you yourself could point us users in the direction of, how too” : I would gladly have done so if you weren’t so vulgar in responding to the person who interfered in our discussion.
But as you stated that : “You’ve included some good information in the post, I appreciate that.” Thanks, here some more :
DMR voice superframes consist of six subframes, named A through F. Each subframe holds three 20 millisecond voice frames.
DSD+ repeatedly displays VOICE/VC2/VC3/VC4/VC5/VC6, so those would be the six subframes.
AMBE voice frames contain two Golay codewords; each codeword supports the correction of three bit errors. The addition of a parity bit to the first codeword supports the detection, but not correction, of a fourth bit error.
Then you just need to know what a XOR is, add some known codewords in the mix and Voila, You’ve just cracked Moto BP ! It’s a simple as that !
-“There are thousands of people whom all seem to know about doing it but none of those will share such information and I find that frustrating” : I’m one of those, but as my work was done for the federal government, I will not speak about that on the Internet… Those “thousands of people whom all seem to know about doing it” are certainly in a similar situation, with no free speech about their works… Think about that
-” statements that it will be released, then it won’t, then it will, for $400, the $600 then €1400, $4000 and today, I believe it’s priced at $7000. What a knob!” : I agree that it sounds both fishy and with an insane price. If only I was paid that amount of money for my work…
-If ANYONE has software or advice on how to decrypt moto bp etc using a dongle and DSD+ FL, please, please I beg you, send it to me.” : Can’t help you here mate, my algorithm is the property of the Gov, with a NDA… But even if I could send you my work, firstly I wouldn’t because you’re too impolite & secondly that work was done before the appearance on the market of both DSD+FL and RTL-SDR. Back then we used real receivers like RACAL stuff, and a homebrewed Voice decoding software which interfaced with an AMBE dongle from DVSI… the code was modular to include changing FEC, adding decryption layers and so on, but that’s the maximum I’m allowed to say on the Net, and as it was a decade ago, there’s certainly new things here as I since retired…
-“Until then, assumptions or not, it doesn’t exist and any claims to say it does, well it’s just nonsense” : Just because you haven’t seen something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist ! If you believe otherwise, you are just a spoiled self-entitled brat. Remember the F117 ?
As stated by [NOT the same guy as above ! (Jim ?!)] in his post, big Defense contractors build for the Feds things you wouldn’t believe…
Well I’m obliged for the additional info, although it’s completely over my head. I’ll move on to something else until an “add-on” is added within DSD or Travis releases one.
What I would say, is my attitude toward this thread has been on purpose, in a reverse way. It seems one can gather more intel this way, especially as people eventually get cock hard and need to be proven correct telling me my theories are wrong. Of course they are, but I got answers. I have no clue about this software, I’ve used the free edition of OpenEar and it was shite. It was basic as ass, always off band and struggles to decode clear DMR, let alone anything else. The BP edition I appreciate was never released in the public domain because the melt got scared of being sued! Big fcukin wow, grow a dick ffs!
There is nothing that I can find, and I’m not talking about two hours of research, but years to support the claim of OpenEar BP as valid.
If it was, the add-on would be out there, somewhere.
Anyway. Let’s not cry over spilt milk. I’ll shall continue to use my Moto DP3600 which, for £50 does what I need it to do. The only frustrating thing is I can’t programme BP and EP channels into the radio at the same time. Its one of the other.
Oh well. Thanks again and yes, I totally agree that I’m an obnoxious prick. 👍
Hey Scott, we know it’s you.
Let it go man …
(And that attitude won’t get you many answers)
This is nice and all but you’re going to get sued one day if you keep this up mate. Found his admission of multiple license violations in this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/RTLSDR/comments/fnsdar/openear_will_be_new_software_for_listening_to/
on this link that you referred to it there is two challenge about PDW and telive!
about PDW i share document that used on ads-b implementing ads-b is open documented and there is no secrets task!
about telive there is also two notes, one i set link of etsi that anybody can download tetra vocoder code
also code writer of telive emailed me after all dmca challenges and suggested to help if his codes is under challenge, but in fact there is no telive problem as i said vocoder code is on etsi and anybody can use it
as i said i wrote openear 5 years ago (with simple UI) and use it individually but i decided to share it free for using by others!
I think having it is better than not having it, and there is no force Lawyer-Engineer!
I think the problem is that you stated in public that “OpenEar is my try to improving current open source projects in github or other sources from any language to c++ for compiling on VC++“. So I take that to mean that you have rewritten open source code in another language aka a “port“. Doing this does not circumvent license laws! If you derive your work from another open source project, then your code must use a compatible license, it cannot be closed source. This is the law, there is no skirting around it.
If you did actually rewrite everything from scratch from standards and books without using any open source code then I do congratulate you on your legal code. But the fact that you mentioned that you are just porting open source code has tainted you and brings everything into question.
At my old workplace we did clean room design and rewrites – a legal way to rewrite code that is incompatible with the target license.
My guess is that at a future date that someone will decompile your binaries and compare the data structures and exact order of processing in the algorithms used to the open source projects that you have erroneously claimed in public that can ignore their licenses “there is no rule that when you change open source, the result must be opensource”. There are loopholes, and that is the reason why the Affero General Public License was created, but your binary only distribution is not using any existing loophole. You have publicly admitted to breaking the law, by ignoring licenses multiple times.
although i have different opinion with you on this sentence “This is the law”
when you talk about all world then the meaning of law maybe different, in this state you must see how is the “legislative” and “lawyer”,
i think copy-left and around its licenses and laws has many big faults in behind of them!
in many cases opensource is like trap
there is many codes that i think those are unusable for many peoples only coders can run it on difficulty states, please note that we are talk about skills and experiences when some people has skills
many peoples has not skills for compiling and using those scattered codes, i can write very complicated code and i can only run it then i share it like opensource code then i say anybody that use it then he must share this code! please note that this code unusable for porting in other project it needs many many changes and it far away from first code, ok then we has new code i can use it only by myself and nobody knows that there is easy decoder but also i can share it for using by other people!
i select to share it with others! when i did not share it then you and other lawyers can not know how i did it! also You quoted my many old sentence on my GitHub i think You can not cite it because there is many changes and replacing on it, it is like that old man say sentences in childhood and after 70 years ones say that hey you said it….
if i think people to bother me about replying to them, no problem i can easily remove this repo and use it by my-self next versions! i think it is maybe better for people that has free time to challenge, they can find another repo for challenge
It only takes a tiny fraction for you to be fully liable:
e.g. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e40e0152-3913-4c79-8b4b-99ffc1af12f8
You have generate a derivative work, if you are pulling in any code at all from (multiple) copyrighted works. And if those copyright violations are proven in court, that could very costly.
it is like ones post multiple comment on this page with different names!
please read all notes that i wrote before and check that all codes is different and notes that those codes authors is not creators of protocols and all documents is free on net, ok?
i hope some one tries to decompile and shows ones like you
really i bothered from answering for prove nothing! i don’t know if it is hard for you for using free exe software please use other Linux scattered codes
also i guess you has not any view about programming and complexity, if you have this you can understand those codes is unusable for porting, if it is be easy or usable many exe files must be created! as i said those codes like trap, and know that coding systematic program is not easy task for be open-sourced
anyway i have no free time for more answering to ones that has free time for challenging on nothing i decide to use it again individually and remove completely repo from GitHub
also i use next version that contains more protocols individually and then no body like you can comment on this page
please come back moneriomaa, we all waiting for a release of your very fine software.
don’t worry about the self proclaimed “lawer”
thanks for your attention
i try to back with this page soon
but before that users can get latest updates news from [email protected]
moneriomaa
Don’t let these people put you off.
You have a lot of people following your project.
Always politics that ruin things.
Please keep up your good work.
thanks for your attention
no problem for challenges
as i said openear is for users not for developers
i try to improve it more
Best Regards
better software out there but suppose you always get a “bad egg” in the basket.
openear is bad, do not use
i think this comment needs more describe from you
maybe it refers to definition of “bad” in your mind
has somebody a older version with tetra support? this app is so cool
did you send him an email? i think he can help you
Grarme, talking about pseudonyms like ask, i only see your nickname? I think you like the have the source to use it for your self. This how it go in this community for 25 years. Using what others are making. I able to write a big book about this.
Any project that only uploads binary files to github, with no source code at all, nothing odd about that at all.
App is as dodgey as they come. Hiding behind pseudonyms including business model and finding utilising Bitcoin. These types of activities are suspicious of black market operations of bad actors.
bad actors? ok scene for you and good actors, please play your role and do not conflict with others role! OpenEar is free program
and only decryption is paid and decryption is not open source! decryption is paid because of complexity of codes and usage
Obsfuscation. Bitcoin. Stolen source code.
as i said openear is free program to help users can listen to digital decoder easily in compare of some separated project and codes, paid version is decryption part, if you think it is stolen please reference me the source code that was stolen you can not find any source code on net about decryption! and how it can be stolen when it is not exist?!, i know that i developed and take long long hours for processing data and find decryption process and then it is only paid and related to bitcoin,
there is many helpers that records for me dmr radios and i check them for finding way to decryption
you do not know about that and only repeat some words! but it is not important for me
I be in this community from year 1997, For all these years there always be this type of coders. DSD asking money and the code is not open. What part you dont like?
As openear was still using (slightly more obfuscated) OsmocomTETRA code without complying to its license (AGPLv3), it has been removed from github via a DMCA takedown request. The history of the repository and all of its forks on github have been removed.
We at Osmocom are more than happy if people build on top of our open source code – but the license must be followed. We intentionally choose copyleft-type licenses for most of our code as we don’t want it to be used within proprietary programs.
congratulations! but you think wrong! openear never will be takedown! tetra is little part of openear, and temporality i removed exe for change and upload it again, currently users can’t use openear because of some unfair pressure but not important very soon completely tetra changed source and in continue never i wish write someone’s about osmocom, in old version demodulator completely changed, it cleared that osmocom used library but i wrote my own 8psk demodulator changed message decision to pi/4dqpsk and i only need voice traffic then in near future other remain part is completely will be changed
and openear continues its ways
I wonder what other open source code open ear incorporates in it’s closed source code. Is every module stolen from somewhere else?
you said that every closed source program is stolen? good idea please let us know more, but in other view in my mind
some open source code is like a trap, they can not be used commercially because they are not user friendly and need to put a amount of unusable (usable only for few number of people) code to access business codes and applications, ok i can not say them you’re welcome, i said them never you can find openear open-sourced, it is for users not for programmers
Openear was a easy way to listen to TETRA on Windows. Please come back OpenEar !
Maybe the Osmocom People can’t program on windows….
thanks for your attention, but as i said some ones think they creates tetra and any body forced to using their code! but don’t worry in near future i release some part of codes to they can see that tetra is free documented and other people also can writes code, they really bothered me, i don’t know i must take my time to prove them or add new protocols and features to openear
and please don’t forget TETRAPOL ( a lot of work…).
Harold, like mention I be in this community from year 1997. I never read this kind of crab in last 25 years. TETRA is fully open protocol all the ETSI documunts are public domain. If you dont like people use or share or write sources, remove the whole code Osmo website pages. nobody able to use it anymore. BTW i did not hear any complains before ported code. Is your company broke due economic crisis what is the problem?
Tetra decryption possible?
sa serait un bonne nouvelle le tetrapol
a oui sa c est une bonne idée le tetrapol
manque plus que le tétrapole
manque plus que le tétrapole