I have to rant a bit here about IPF and openness, but I keep reading about that in various forums and mostly people tell other prospective users who want to dump their disks for preservation to "stay away from KryoFlux". So why is that?
I don't think the attitude KryoFlux is presenting wrt. opening up the format is NOT a very helpful one.
It's practically like Stroustrup saying "Hey, you know, we will never release our C++ compiler because we're the only people who know how it works because we spent countless years perfecting our C++ programming skills. If we release it now, people who don't have a clue will use it and the world will be swamped by broken software"... guess what? That's exactly what happened, and it's not an entirely bad thing IMHO.
Some other analogy: "We don't want people to have access to screwdrivers and soldering irons, because they will want to use it to repair their TV sets. We have spent years on perfecting our TV set repair skills, and we know how to do it, if people start doing it themselves they will obviously break something. So we want to keep close control on who gets our screwdrivers and soldering irons. Oh, and we also invested lots of money in developing these repair tools so we obviously don't want other people to make any money off it. Our repairs are as cheap as possible so please let us do the work"
See the analogy?
I mean, seriously, of course opening up IPF and the hardware will lead people to start hacking with it, and they *will* break the format in the process and submit bad/broken dumps. But the key to keep IPF files as close as possible to the originals, and not get swamped by "fake" dumps, lies not in keeping the software closed but in establishing an "official" dump database or something. No matter if it's SHA checksums, cryptographically signed files, or something else entirely. You would probably get enough dumps of different games to tell the originals from fake ones yourselves, it's not that hard if you have access to the raw stream data.
Oh, and while I think that creating the DLL file with the complete floppy emulation is a good thing for some Emu devs out there who don't know an awful lot about floppy disk hardware, *requiring* the use of a closed-source emulation component will deinitely be a blocker for most open-source emulators. IPF could become some sort of de-facto standard for *all* disk images (just look at the hundreds of image types that MESS supports for example to see why this would be a good thing) but by keeping the library closed-source and available for some systems only, you're basically scaring away most of the people who could really help drive IPF adoption forward. I mean, wow, there's actually *three* emulators now that support IPF (UAE, Caprice and Spectaculator), and this is after what, 5 years that the DLL files exists now?
I really hope that you'll reconsider your stance, but until that happens I guess that the STREAM format is the only open way to use DTC/KryoFlux. Widespread IPF adoption will most probably remain a wish.
Again, sorry for the rant, I am a proud owner of a 1st generation KryoFlux device and I consider it to be one of the simplest ways to dump my disk collection, but I won't be completely happy until these "format wars" have ended and IPF (or some other open format which can be created with KF) is the one and only disk image format out there. Might take a few generations though
Edit: Mixed up STREAM and DRAFT, sorry for the confusion. I know STREAM is open and that's what I was referring to