GSM modem documentation

[Harald Welte]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:30:19AM +0300, Petri Aarnio wrote:
> GSM modem AT command spec and application developer's guide shouldn't be 
> NDA stuff, since GSM modems are available also as separate boxes which can 
> be controlled by the buyer with PC.  So any part of the interface cannot be 
> kept "secret". So I'm quite sure that if the TI contact person in FIC just 
> asked for the spec, it should be no problem to publish them to developers.
> I tried to search more information about Calypso in TI's web pages but 
> couldn't find anything.

This is just ENTIRELY NOT TRUE WHATSOEVER

1) Almost any vendor of GSM modems has their complete commandset
   documentation under NDA.  Please name me a major vendor (Ti, Qualcom,
   etc.) who has ever made that documentation completely public before
   spreading such rumours.

2) I can assure you, no matter how long which person would ever talk to
   the TI GSM department, this will not change.  There is nothing more
   closed in the entire electronics industry than the GSM branch of
   every big semiconductor vendor.  In fact, it is very hard even for
   FIC to get any documentation or support from Ti.  For even the most
   simple response to provide anything _UNDER NDA_ you have to expect
   at least one month to get a useful reply.

3) Yes, there is _NO_ documentation on the calypso hardware on the Ti
   webpages.  In fact, in the GSM world it is common that only
   hand-picked selected customers even know what kind of products the
   semiconductor vendors have.  Yes, even the product catalog is
   becoming proprietary and under NDA

4) You have failed to properly respond to nay of my questions. 
   Please give a concise example of where in the implementation of the
   GSM part of the Neo1973 would you need any information that is not
   either visible from gsmd source code, or in GSM 07.05, 07.07, 07.10
   or similar.

   Please show me one.   I carefully reviewed the calypso before we
   accepted it for the Neo1973.  The main criteria for selecting it (and
   not some other chipset) was that it is _extremely_ good following the
   official GSM specs and that there is no proprietary/NDA documentation
   required.  Very unlike other vendors that we investigated (such as wavecom)
   which have their own proprietary multiplex (instead of 07.10) and the
   like

I am happy to accept any challenge of my chain of arguments.  But please
argue with factual data and not out of some kind of "I need that
documentation because I need it" mood.

Thanks.
-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge at openmoko.org>          	        http://openmoko.org/
============================================================================
Software for the world's first truly open Free Software mobile phone