Re: [Opengc-devel] status/Avsim conference update/RFC

[Damion S. <be...@cs...>]

Hi,

> As I understand the GPL there is nothing to preclude the use of 
> open-source
> software for commercial purposes provided the resultant code is 
> provided
> and/or made available along with the binary executable. The problem 
> arises
> trying to distinguish between source code that is integral to the 
> program
> vis-a-vis programs that link to a library or can be considered unique 
> and
> seperate

So here's the problem... if the source code and binaries are made 
completely available for a finished product (I'm talking here about the 
homebuilt aircraft market), what's to stop some other hardware company 
- presumably with more resources than me - from releasing a competing 
product derived completely from OpenGC? While it is technically not 
legal to do this without also releasing the source code, I don't know 
that it would be possible to prove that they violated the GPL without a 
lengthy court process.

> IMO OpenGC in it's current form and structure is not amenable to the 
> spirit
> and intent of the GPL

Really, why is that? I've contributed everything I've done back to the 
project, provided a CVS server using my own resources, and paid for the 
web site out of my own pocket. All of the existing code is GPL'd, and 
all of the contributing authors are credited in the header of each 
file. I haven't made any money off of OpenGC to date, nor do I have an 
existing commercial project.

> Quite frankly, starting an open-source project and
> then suggesting a change in the license is a bit ingenuous.

Not really, as long as the new license is also open source. Something 
like the MPL simply says, "Do whatever you want as long as you 
contribute any code changes back to the project". In many ways, this is 
less restrictive than the GPL. Keep in mind that, given that I provided 
the initial codebase for the project and have been maintaining it on a 
solo basis for the past year, I would have the most to "lose" from such 
an approach since I would essentially be opening up my work to 
commercial development by others.

> My suggstion
> would be to go for a "clean room" approach, but that will require a 
> third
> entity not exposed to the source to create a spec or design document 
> based
> on observations of the programs performance.

I don't think so. Such a third party doesn't really exist, nor do I 
think one is necessary. I can always push development back to where I 
was prior to August 26 2001, since I have archive copies on CD. As I 
said, if the closed-source route were taken (and I'm now leaning 
towards trying to find a compromise that would allow the project to 
continue largely as open source) the best I can do is promise that I 
would not use anyone else's code in a closed source product. The GPL 
does not amount to a non-competition agreement.

> Trying to produced closed-source and open-source programs under the 
> same
> license will most likely result in the open-source side stagnating and
> eventually being overwhelmed by the closed-source-portion. It would 
> have a
> very chilling effect on new ideas and innovations from the community at
> large.

I disagree. If the bulk of the code is licensed under something like 
the MPL, then it would be up to developers to provide a value-added 
product. For instance, I could run everything _but_ the EGyro project 
as open source. As an example, I point out Kitware Inc. They have been 
quite successful running VTK as an open source product, yet also 
distributing a payware application called VolView that uses some of the 
components of VTK wrapped into a slick interface.

Also, I believe the Mozilla/Netscape example contradicts the "chilling 
effect" example; if anything, the Mozilla project has hurt Netscape's 
bottom line since their releases are often better than Netscape's. If 
the project really _is_ viable from an open source standpoint, then the 
community at large can create a completely open-source alternative to 
whatever commercial product is released. If not, then the community 
benefits from someone going the extra mile to create a polished 
commercial product.

Anyways, it seems like there are two options:

1) Start from scratch, create a new closed-source product that is 
functionally similar to OpenGC but based on new code (or on code from 
the original project prior to the Sourceforge days). As I would have to 
do this myself, there would be little incentive to continue development 
of the original OpenGC and this would effectively kill the project.

2) Re-license OpenGC under a less restrictive license more amenable to 
commercial development. This would allow the bulk of the code to remain 
publicly available, while still making it feasible to pursue a 
commercial product.

Personally, it seems like option 2 is the best route at this point.

-Damion-

---------
Damion Shelton
Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute
A408-o Newell Simon Hall
412.268.3866 (office)
412.818.8829 (cell)
412.268.6436 (fax)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~beowulf
---------
I hope that after I die, people will say of me: "That guy sure owed me 
a lot of money."