From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.


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)

I just noticed the languages section on the side and someone translated the (en:Baudline) page to Bahasa Indonesian. Audiocow (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
I found this 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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

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)

User Group[edit]

Baudline has a user group / mailing list that anyone can join at

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))


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

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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 (talkcontribs)

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))

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)