Code Reuse - consider code as COTS parts?

[ericand]

There have been several threads which talk about reuse of code and why/if Kevin's code is strictly legal given the wording of R76. I would like to suggest that code (like Kevin's) should be considered a common off the shelf component. The cost accounting for it is $0 since it is available free of charge to all teams.

[eshteyn]

I completely agree with your logic, however i would e-mail first and ask them if its legal.

[Astronouth7303]

I think that using something like Kevin's camera code would be somewhat akin to using a bolt-on assembly. But on the flip side, FIRST encourages us to use Kevin's code (or a similar library).

The wording is weirder this year. I still say that it is unreasonable to expect us to change every line of code when you use a library.

If we have to modify any libraries we use, shouldn't we have to modify the IFI libraries? :D

[TravisE]

Where Would I get Kevin's Code?

[jtdowney]

http://www.kevin.org/frc

[TravisE]

which file is it though all of them or which 1 ?:confused:

[JohnC]

I would argue that the second paragraph in 8.3 ROBOT RULES clears this up.

When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than
“lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes.
Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.

When you apply that to R76, it seems like they just want us to have a working knowledge of what is going on in the code. Sure, make some changes, improve something here and there, adapt here and there. I think rewriting it to do the same thing would be officially more legal but totally against the logic that they're asking us to use in the quoted passage.