Current status of the SIMtrace project

Harald Welte laforge at
Tue Mar 21 17:07:49 UTC 2017

Hi E:V:A,

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:48:41PM +0200, E:V:A wrote:

> Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to all my inquiries
> and challenging comments/requests. Your response has indeed convinced
> me that this project is very much alive, but that it need a whole lot
> more of community TLC.

I'm not sure what TLC is? But yes, like most projects, we can use help
on various sides.

> No offense taken. They (bodziow and kamwar) just recently responded to
> my question here:
> and indeed thay have made several improvements.

Well, the problem that I see is that they have created a fork or done an
independent new implementation or something in between.  So rather than
working collaboratively with the existing project, and contributing
their work, they have created their own project.  Everyone is of course
free to do what they want, but it makes me somehow sad.  Have we ever
done something to them that made them go away?

The worst thing that a user wants is that there are 25 different
programs, all having different feature sets and different bugs, maybe
even based on different forks of some code made at some point in time.

>From a user point of view, you want one software in which everyone tries
contributes their bug fixes and feature enhancements.

And particularly, as we are talking about the firmware and host programs
separately, there should at least be some level of standardization on
the USB protocol, so that you have interoperability between the
in-device firmware and different host programs.

However, I haven't seen anyone showing up and proposing (let alone
implementing) a more flexible/standardized/future-proof USB protocol.

> This seem very promising, so I guess a closer collaboration with them
> would benefit everyone.

I do not recall ever having turned down any collaboration with anyone.
But collaboration is not "I silently take this code and make my own
version of it", but collaboration is to actively work together, to
submit proposals, code, comments, etc.

> > When we started sysmocom, we made very sure that
> > it does not control the Osmocom projects in any way.  It doesn't hold
> > the trade marks, and all time Holger or I spent on development of
> > Osmocom code is our personal copyright, and not that of a company.
> > Also, there are no copyright assignments with contributors, making it a
> > safe guard against anyone who might want to come later to try to change
> > the license or whatever else.
> >
> > We have started sysmocom to be able to generate business that funds more
> > developers and developments for Osmocom.
> Awesome and very encouraging!

Thanks.  I would never do it any differently, and I guess anyone who has
been following some of my past work would see where my priorities are.

There are too many projects out there that are suffering (from my point
of view) of too much corporate/commercial influence.

Osmocom has existed before sysmocom came around (and hopefully will
exist after sysmocom is history?), and sysmocom is only involved in a
certain subset of projects.

> Thanks again for your time and I think it has been well spent.

I'm happy my feeling about this was right :)

- Harald Welte <laforge at> 
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

More information about the simtrace mailing list