Talk:Baudline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

Somebody put notability and cite reference tags on this article so I decided to search Google scholar for some reliable secondary sources. Baudline seems to have limited popularity in the scientific and musical communities. Here are some articles I found:

Of particular interest is the "Acoustic cryptanalysis" article authored by Adi Shamir who happens to be the S in RSA. The SDR, EMF, VLF, and frequency measurement articles are also of interest. I'm going to add some of these as reference citations. Audiocow (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the languages section on the side and someone translated the (en:Baudline) page to Bahasa Indonesian. http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudline Audiocow (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references that show support for Linux, FreeBSD, and JACK. But I couldn't find any references for Solaris. Does baudline really work with Solaris? Audiocow (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found this https://library.network.com/CatalogQueryServer/app.jsp#software/76033 citation that says baudline supports the Solaris 10 platform. Unfortunately that pages also says "As of April 7, 2010, the Sun Software Library will no longer be available" which is likely due to Oracle's recent purchase of Sun. So there isn't much point adding this link as a reference. Or is adding a soon to be deleted link better than nothing? Or should Solaris be deleted from the baudline Infobox Operating System list? Audiocow (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has been nominated for AfD. I believe the notability requirement is meet by two of the references. The first is inclusion on FreshPorts which is the FreeBSD software port distribution system. The second is the the "Acoustic cryptanalysis" article in which Adi Shamir based an entire research project on baudline. Audiocow (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FreeBSD's FreshPorts is the equivalent of what apt-get is to Debian and yum is to Redhat. They are independently reviewed and maintained software repositories. The only software the Shamir "Acoustic cryptanalysis" project used was baudline as a signal analysis tool and GnuPG as a CPU instruction noise maker. Audiocow (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding "featured" and "partial" tags to all the references indicating how prominent the source citation is. Audiocow (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and updated all of the reference access dates. Found two dead links, now searching for link fixes. Audiocow (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable secondary source but I just discovered that a number of Wikipedeans use baudline for creating Wikipedia content. I found these by doing an image search for the word baudline. They aren't useful for notability purposes but worth mentioning:
Is there any way to find other Wikipedia images that were created with baudline but don't have searchable text tags? Probably not. Audiocow (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

free[edit]

the article doesnt make clear that baudline is closed source but free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.246.43 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article does say the license is proprietary but there isn't a place in the wiki Infobox for the cost of free. I'm not sure it is allowed to discuss price in the wiki context. Audiocow (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Group[edit]

Baudline has a user group / mailing list that anyone can join at groups.google.com/group/baudline

Is the proper place for this user group link here on this discussion page or in the External Links section of the main article page? (Baudline 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

License[edit]

Can a program released under GPL, be payed for the source?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.37.189.66 (talk • contribs)

The wording of your question doesn't make sense. But if you meant, "Can a person pay money in exchange for the source of a program released under the GPL?", then the answer is yes. Pricing policy is not restricted by the GPL. --Ds13 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. This baudline FAQ entry says:

The about baudline window says "All distribution is explicitly prohibited." This means you can download a copy for yourself, you can tell your friends where to download a copy, but you can't go distributing copies.

* You can't copy baudline on CD's or floppies and sell or give them away. * You can't put a copy of baudline on your web site or server unless you get our explicit permission. * If you are a computer manufacturer or VAR you can't put copies of baudline on the machines you sell. * Also putting baudline on an automatic download or update system like some Linux vendors are bringing online is considered distribution and is not allowed.

Usage is not restricted. So personal, commercial, educational, or government uses are all OK.

Basically you are prohibited from any form of mass redistribution without first getting explicit permission from SigBlips. This will usually require some form of licensing agreement. Please contact us for more information about baudline licensing, services, and support.

So how is that a GPL/Propietary dual license? Besides, if you go to the downloads section, you don't get sources for the latest binary version, but some previous one. This is just weird. W2bh 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically they are saying that the proprietary binary has a different set of rights than the GPL source code. Spectrogram 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm sorry, but that's not dual licensing. Dual licensing is when you release a piece of software with a copyright statement that says "here, have this software under either license A o B, it's up to you". And this is NOT it. W2bh 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you just described, A or B, is a dual license for license compatibility purposes. Qt uses a different dual license model which is the same A or B choice but B costs money. The Wikipedia dual license page also has a proprietary works section which mentions segregating users into groups. So that's three examples of different dual licensing models and it is possible that there are even more variations. Spectrogram 23:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The web site mentions that the source code is "very expensive". But, if it's under the GPL, what would prevent people from distributing the source code? This does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.64.216 (talk • contribs)

The baudline source code can be purchased under a couple of different licenses. Purchase the GPL source code and you can distribute the source and binaries by the terms of the GPL. Purchase the source code with a proprietary license and you need to follow those specific distribution terms. Different licenses with different terms for different goals and purposes. (Baudline 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As far as I can tell, the current version of baudline is not GPL. The download page makes no reference to "GNU" or "GPL". Does anyone have a citation for the existence of any copylefted version? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently looking at packaging this software for the Debian Project. The bug in Debian can be found at [1]. I have reached out to the upstream developers via e-mail and also to a number of interested communities to try to locate a copy of the source code for this. If I am unable to find a GNU GPL version of this source code, I will report this back. --IainLearmonth (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. No response from the Baudline developer. Having spoken to developers from other distributions and done some research on this, I have to conclude that there is no GNU GPL version of this software available. I've updated the article to reflect this. --IainLearmonth (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed Baudline from the Comparison of free software for audio page as it doesn't belong there being not "free and open source". --IainLearmonth (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baudline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This link moved, wasn't entirely dead, so I've updated it to the new URL. IainLearmonth (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baudline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

= Added Link of Official Twitter Page: https://www.twitter.com/baudline/ but some bot removed it[edit]

Whomever is in charge of establishing official links, please add a link to their official Twitter page, since a bot removed my submission.

Infobox software template[edit]

Has the Infobox software template been deprecated? I can't change the release versions or remove invalid parts of it. Spot51 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baudline&oldid=1198676087"