[Jon Stratis]

This does seem to meet the letter of the rule. I want to ask the CD public what they feel of the spirit of the rule, though... This doesn't feel like a posting for a library of code for use on a robot - like the example provided of a library for controlling an onmi-directional drive system. This is the code for a specific robot.

Im my opinion, a posting meeting the spirit of the rule would include everything. Design files for the mechanism the library is controlling, description for other teams trying to use it, and the code for it. The post would say something along the lines of "Hey everyone, look at this awesome thing we developed and are making available to you! Let us know if you have any questions or feedback so we can make it better for everyone!"

I really don't want to harp on the OP, but this is a posting noting the letter of the rule and dumping the entire developed last year out there with no description or effort to improve the community. Literally every team could make a post like this and make the 2013 R16 completely non-applicable to software by doing so. Looking at it form that extreme, it would seem that using the rule this way would simply be punishing those teams who failed to post, not enhancing the capabilities of the community.

The art of developing a comprehensive software library for some specific purpose is something that can greatly benefit the students on a team (and the community as a whole), and something that I believe FIRST wants to encourage. At the same time, however, FIRST wants to ensure the students on a team are doing new work each year, and not just riding on the coattails of previous efforts. This is something that is easy to do with physical parts, but software isn't physical, which makes it difficult to quantify sometimes. It's something our entire system (justice, patent, copyright, etc) has had a difficult time coming to terms with over the past 30 years.