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

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

Hi,

> So why should anyone contribute source code to an open-source project 
> that
> anyone can use for profit without providing any value added from a 
> derived
> product? I cuts both ways.

It's a personal choice. It depends I suppose on whether or not you 
consider the change so novel as to be revolutionary. E.g., if I notice 
a small bug (let's say a color is a little off) in OpenGC, I'd probably 
be willing to make the change even understanding that someone else may 
profit from it. If I come up with a completely revolutionary gauge 
design, the question is a bit more difficult. All I can say is that 
this model _has_ actually been successful...

> Example, I've got a pretty decent FMC running on
> my system ( My masters thesis at Purdue was on control and 
> optimization of
> shuttle approach trajectories) and with a little effort and 
> application of
> current control theory you could turn it into a reasonable autopilot. 
> That
> code will NEVER leave the confines of my hard drive.

Regarding the FMC, that's certainly your prerogative. Likewise, a bunch 
of the code I've written at work will remain private as well. But, your 
FMC also illustrates my current frustration with OpenGC - lack of code 
being contributed back.

> Plus there is the added potential for litigation.
>
> The last thing I need is for someone to grab all or part of my code 
> and the
> algorithms, put out a commercial product, and the next thing I know my
> attorney and I are in court because either the manufacturer goofed in
> modifying the code and/or some idiot pilot flew into the side of a 
> mountain.
> Yes, I know what the license and warranty state...  try telling that 
> to the
> judge and jury. And funny how lawyers seem to gravitate towards "deep
> pockets"

Well, it seems that this risk applies with the GPL as well. The only 
added requirement with the GPL is that the source be made available. 
I'm a bit skeptical that releasing the source provides any sort of 
legal buffer as far as liability goes. If this was a real concern, open 
source couldn't exist. With both projects I've been involved with (VTK 
and ITK) the liability is placed on the system integrator, who is 
responsible for testing to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies 
involved, primarily the Food & Drug Administration with what I've done 
so far. This is in fact a main argument for permitting commercial 
development of open source code; getting regulatory approval for these 
sorts of products is insanely expensive.

> I don't know what to suggest. You seem determined to try a commercial
> venture that involves a high level of risk ( wonder why they call it
> experimental/home built ) with software and derivations based on an
> open-source license and project that started out as a learning 
> exercise.  I
> simply cannot agree with such a change

Understood. Hopefully the proposal I mailed out will address this. As I 
mention in it, any revised license version will be available for you 
(and others) to examine and verify that none of the "debated" code is 
included. However, as I've said, the only difference between the 
current and proposed versions are the ability to use the code without 
restriction. Trying "a commercial venture that involves a high level of 
risk" is not prohibited under the current license...

> Hopefully, you understand my position.

Yes, I do. I hope you understand mine is well, even if you don't agree 
with it.

Best,
-Damion-

---------
Damion Shelton
The Open Source Glass Cockpit Project (OpenGC)
Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute
http://www.opengc.org
da...@op...