NASA releases parts of mars robots sotware package as open source.
Jan Panteltje
http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/overview/index.php
Supported is among some other systems Linux.
John Hasler
> 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
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Jan Panteltje
<jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote in <87ir9g2...@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 shit, 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
Rod Smith
Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> On a sunny day (Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:39:47 -0500) it happened John Hasler
> <jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote in <87ir9g2...@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, rods...@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Jan Panteltje
rods...@nessus.rodsbooks.com (Rod Smith) wrote in
<raftk4-...@speaker.rodsbooks.com>:
mm, some more noise from them and I drop Linux, libc and the whole shit.
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.
John Hasler
> 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 shit.
> 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.
Jan Panteltje
<jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote in <87vedf1...@toncho.dhh.gt.org>:
>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.
So, 'Inside photography' is then owned and sued by Intel?
What a morons.
Misuse of language.
There is a mobile phone company named 'orange'.
I am not sure if it is the fruit or the color, but maybe buy no orange shirt...
The Dutch Royals are called the 'Oranjes' (translated Orange), actually their color
too I think, maybe they could sue.
To much shit.
Getting normal language words, grabbing their positive meaning and then trademarking
that word is stealing from the public.
> 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.
Well, maybe you should tell that to Intel.
>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 shit.
>> 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?
OK, I will try to explain what _I_ think is happening.
You know politicians, they come to your place and make noise, the more the better
to draw attention to their ego, and convince people they can represent their issue
(case) for them, 'let me represent you and all will be better' 'save you time too'.
These same guys get supporters, sell you out once in power, write out elections with
you having the choice between them and similar ones, and *control you*.
Now Govs (who are in our society basically representatives of industry who can manipulate
people very well) want to control the software scene, *especially* when it becomes big and powerful
affecting their own profits (such as threatening Microsoft's profits).
So they play the same game,.
Without even verifying or bothering to verify I say all organisations that claim to
represent 'open source' are political manipulations directed to gain control of it (open source)
and *will* sell it out to those controlling like Microsof.
It is much easier to work from that point of view then to endlessly see if they are genuine,
as even when they are genuine now, Microsoft money will buy them later.
Once control is gained, as we also see in the Internet today (China has pretty much 100% control
now to keep _their_ people manipulators (politicians) in control, the US and western countries keep
years of data to control and evaluate *you*, so once 'open source' or 'Linux' or computing
in general (via DRM for example) are under govs control then it is dead, just as dead as the
EU deal that was made last night...
If every program you write and every solution you come up with is from then on grabbed by some
club who claims to own rights to even the word 'open source' it is better to start doing something
totally different.
There are a lot of dead ends in computing, we see for example PS3 with Cell as difficult to program,
Lots of stuff is standardised to make it interchangeable, x86 architecture...
If you look a bit deeper, and what it can do (computing) you see there is multimedia as some sort
of 'end point', once we have audio + video and can process that the way we want there is not
much more to add (Vista has nothing that Xp did not have apart from f*cked up performance).
I have been playing with FPGA (programmable logic) a bit, you just design your own processor,
just fit for the purpose you need it for, or do thing in hardware.
Years ago I found out I could do DES with it in one clock cycle, clock speeds have increased there too.
You can they wonder if you should not just implement 100 *processors* and not 100 *processes* to do something,
and you can dynamically create processors or change hardware on the fly.
Lower power, faster speeds with less hardware.
After all, after the person has audio, video, a web browser, some more stuff, with an Internet under control
of the govs again, they can then easily be brainwashed to start the next war, hate the next country
all to serve the same politicians alias representatives of *industry* (for example weapon industry in the US,
but of course the same here, oil and natural gas too).
So when 'open source' is becoming an instrument it is no longer for learning but for manipulation.
Of course it is up to you and me to play along.
I think perhaps one of the most important aspects of Internet is to communicate between people,
'that is why Usenet, that is why IRC, that is why email, that is why these video portals.
Commerce is _not_ the main thing, it is an extra loading, but same commerce makes further
development possible.
But if it wants to take control, or tries to take control, then people will look for
a different way to communicate then the 'controlled' Internet, I have something here already.
If Linux gets infested with DRM, networks start to prefer one content over the other, govs
spy on you, industry sends lawyers if you let your friends hear a song you bought, then it
has all failed its purpose and alternatives must be sought, and putting energy into Linux or
whatever would become a waste of time, would be like shooting yourself in the foot.
Is Microsof the next Enron? Why not, what if newspapers charged 50 Euro for the morning
edition they printed...
But Microsof charges hundreds of Euros for every 12 cent DVD copy of Vista or whatever.
Protected only by those same politicians that it has on its payroll.
The French had revolution, maybe the day will come people will NOT be willing to pay that
much a for a copy of a crap OS, and that day Microsof is Enron2.
Already now Balmerman is desperately looking to invest his cash into some project that will
make as many bucks from nothing as Billy The Gates stumbled on.
He will not find it, because only people like *me* know what that is, and I ain't telling them,
not just because of patent violation accusations towards Linux, not only because US is a mass murder
weapon factory, with a fascist president, but also because Microsof is a dinosaur and it cannot be helped.
Bilgeha...@gmail.com
> 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
John Hasler
> 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.
Jan Panteltje
<jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote in <87wsxsv...@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.