NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source. - Linux

This is a discussion on NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source. - Linux ; NASA releases mars robots sotware package as open source: http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/overview/index.php Supported is among some other systems Linux....

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

  1. NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    NASA releases mars robots sotware package as open source:
    http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/overview/index.php

    Supported is among some other systems Linux.

  2. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    Jan Panteltje writes:
    > NASA releases mars robots sotware package as open source:
    > http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/overview/index.php


    Look at the license. It is neither Free Software nor Open Source.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  3. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    On a sunny day (Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:39:47 -0500) it happened John Hasler
    wrote in <87ir9g2guk.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>:

    >Jan Panteltje writes:
    >> NASA releases mars robots sotware package as open source:
    >> http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/overview/index.php

    >
    >Look at the license. It is neither Free Software nor Open Source.


    Well, I am no lawyer, but 'open source' to me means basically: publish the source.

    Apart from parrot like copy restrictions, you can then study the source,
    and write your own.
    Much better then closed source a la Microsof.

    It is exactly this learning (or call it aping) possibility, that is the real value.
    The rest is lawyers food, and of no value to me writing software.
    But a lot of people make a big thing of it.

    So I will not criticise this license of them, nor will I argue over GPL(1...n)
    if all that stuff really ever starts annoying me, then I will simply publish under my own license,
    exactly what Caltech is doing now.

    Too often I hear about 'this great fore fighter of open source has just landed a ($$$) job with
    Microsof', while I never ever did see a single line of code that 'great fore fighter' wrote,
    never even heard about him.
    Politics, careers, self promoting, lots of ****, fighting over a word in a license, not for me.
    If you do not like that license then do not look at the soft.
    In the mean time there are many many Linux programmers active in robotics who would like
    to have a glimpse, even just at the API to see how they organised things.
    Quote me on this.

    El Pante

  4. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    In article ,
    Jan Panteltje writes:
    >
    >
    > On a sunny day (Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:39:47 -0500) it happened John Hasler
    > wrote in <87ir9g2guk.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>:
    >
    >>Jan Panteltje writes:
    >>> NASA releases mars robots sotware package as open source:
    >>> http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/overview/index.php

    >>
    >>Look at the license. It is neither Free Software nor Open Source.

    >
    > Well, I am no lawyer, but 'open source' to me means basically: publish
    > the source.


    Actually, the term "open source" has a pretty specific definition:

    http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

    The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a standards body that, among other
    things, certifies licenses as being open source (or refuses to offer such
    certification). The OSI is starting to make noise about protecting the
    name "open source" from those who want to abuse it:

    http://www.opensource.org/node/163

    As you're just somebody posting on Usenet, you presumably don't have to
    worry about the OSI lawyers knocking on your door; however, using the term
    "open source" incorrectly does mean you're not communicating effectively.
    It's like calling something "green" when in fact it's orange, or at least
    blue.

    --
    Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
    http://www.rodsbooks.com
    Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

  5. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    On a sunny day (Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:00:27 -0000) it happened
    rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote in
    :

    >In article ,
    > Jan Panteltje writes:
    >>
    >>
    >> On a sunny day (Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:39:47 -0500) it happened John Hasler
    >> wrote in <87ir9g2guk.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>:
    >>
    >>>Jan Panteltje writes:
    >>>> NASA releases mars robots sotware package as open source:
    >>>> http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/overview/index.php
    >>>
    >>>Look at the license. It is neither Free Software nor Open Source.

    >>
    >> Well, I am no lawyer, but 'open source' to me means basically: publish
    >> the source.

    >
    >Actually, the term "open source" has a pretty specific definition:
    >
    >http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
    >
    >The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a standards body that, among other
    >things, certifies licenses as being open source (or refuses to offer such
    >certification). The OSI is starting to make noise about protecting the
    >name "open source" from those who want to abuse it:
    >
    >http://www.opensource.org/node/163
    >
    >As you're just somebody posting on Usenet, you presumably don't have to
    >worry about the OSI lawyers knocking on your door; however, using the term
    >"open source" incorrectly does mean you're not communicating effectively.
    >It's like calling something "green" when in fact it's orange, or at least
    >blue.


    mm, some more noise from them and I drop Linux, libc and the whole ****.
    DO YOU HEAR THAT OSI?

    Look I wrote 2 operating systems in my life, almost any application you can
    think of, now all that remains is to think of a license that f*cks OSI.

    Let's see, Intel (the chip maker) copyrighted the word 'inside',
    and started suing websites that had somehow the word 'inside' in it.
    I have pointed out on Usenet, and to them, that they stole the 'good vibe'
    from the Yoga movement (peace is inside), and that _they_ were in fact
    capitalizing on very very old religious / spiritual or whatever you like to
    call it, basis.
    Intel has now abandoned 'Inside' take note.
    I have boycotted Intel ever since, and this will remain so, no matter what they
    come up with.

    I can do the same with OSI definition of open source no problem.

    To many lawyers, maybe they should take up programming and shut up.
    That would actually add to the OPEN SOURCE pool of software.

    Better then their people joining Microsof.

  6. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    Jan Panteltje writes:
    > Intel (the chip maker) copyrighted the word 'inside', and started suing
    > websites that had somehow the word 'inside' in it.


    You can't copyright a word. Intel registered INSIDE as a trademark. You
    only infringe a trademark when you use it to sell an item similar to what
    it was registered for in such a way as to potentially confuse the public.
    A trademark owner has no power over nominative use of the mark or over any
    use which does not involve using it as a label to sell something.

    > mm, some more noise from them and I drop Linux, libc and the whole ****.
    > DO YOU HEAR THAT OSI?


    The kernel and libc developers have no connection with OSI. Why do you
    want to "punish" them for OSI's perceived crimes?

    > I can do the same with OSI definition of open source no problem.


    How do you propose to meaningfully boycott a definition?

    > To many lawyers, maybe they should take up programming and shut up.


    Maybe you should take a look at what OSI actually is and what they have to
    say before flying into a rage. Hint: OPEN SOURCE is not a trademark of
    OSI.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  7. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    On 22 Jun, 19:00, rodsm...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote:
    > Actually, the term "open source" has a pretty specific definition:
    >
    > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
    >


    Yes, but I think this definition only applies if you want to be
    certified by them. I disagree that a "body" can define open source and
    monopolize and enforce its definition by their own understanding.

    > The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a standards body that, among other
    > things, certifies licenses as being open source (or refuses to offer such
    > certification). The OSI is starting to make noise about protecting the
    > name "open source" from those who want to abuse it:
    >
    > http://www.opensource.org/node/163
    >
    > As you're just somebody posting on Usenet, you presumably don't have to
    > worry about the OSI lawyers knocking on your door; however, using the term
    > "open source" incorrectly does mean you're not communicating effectively.
    > It's like calling something "green" when in fact it's orange, or at least
    > blue.
    >
    > --
    > Rod Smith, rodsm...@rodsbooks.comhttp://www.rodsbooks.com
    > Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking


    I am not sure about the law on this, but I don't see it reasonable or
    fair that OSI lawyers have any right to say anything about how one
    defines a license as "open source". As long as you dont claim it is
    OSI certified, you should still have the right to call it open source
    by your own definition. I would possibly call my own license explicity
    "not OSI certified" just to be fair and avoid confusions, but I
    definitely do think everyone has the right to have their own
    definition of this.

    Bahadir


  8. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    Bahadir writes:
    > I am not sure about the law on this, but I don't see it reasonable or
    > fair that OSI lawyers have any right to say anything about how one
    > defines a license as "open source".


    Do you have some evidence that they are trying to do so?

    > I definitely do think everyone has the right to have their own definition
    > of this.


    Just as everyone has the right to have their own definition of WINDOWS or
    MACINTOSH.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  9. Re: NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.

    On a sunny day (Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:03:45 -0500) it happened John Hasler
    wrote in <87wsxsvzxq.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>:

    >Bahadir writes:
    >> I am not sure about the law on this, but I don't see it reasonable or
    >> fair that OSI lawyers have any right to say anything about how one
    >> defines a license as "open source".

    >
    >Do you have some evidence that they are trying to do so?
    >
    >> I definitely do think everyone has the right to have their own definition
    >> of this.

    >
    >Just as everyone has the right to have their own definition of WINDOWS or
    >MACINTOSH.


    Have you seen the iphone movie?
    http://www.apple.com/iphone/usingiphone/guidedtour.html
    They just talk like it thas GPS.
    But it does not.
    After seeing that I would not even want to use the word macintosh.


+ Reply to Thread