Open-source FRC code

[shawger]

I'd check on the exact terms of the GPL license before you do this. I'm not sure if you can put some files under the GPL while leaving some files under Kevin's license, as the two licenses are not compatible.

I'll all for the idea though.

[JBotAlan]

Originally Posted by shawger

I'd check on the exact terms of the GPL license before you do this. I'm not sure if you can put some files under the GPL while leaving some files under Kevin's license, as the two licenses are not compatible.

Since Kevin Watson has expressly stated that he does not want his files re-posted, I am not going to re-post them. It is perfectly fine to GPL my portions of the project. I am also not re-posting IFI-written code as they still hold the copyright whether or not they choose to enforce it. If this project takes off, I am going to make it very clear that people can only license what they own, and nothing more.

JBot

[11Mort11]

default code now is ok but open source auton that is written by a teams programmers would probably take away from the competition from team to team to see who has the best code/programmers. there should be other ways to help new teams such as having examples of past years just not open source for the current year

[bear24rw]

I think it would be cool if we had a place on chiefdelphi where we could all dump our code from the past years into, i guess you could do it with white papers but a place specifically for posting code snippets and example code would be nice

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by 11Mort11

default code now is ok but open source auton that is written by a teams programmers would probably take away from the competition from team to team to see who has the best code/programmers. there should be other ways to help new teams such as having examples of past years just not open source for the current year

I don't really think that that would happen. Teams have been publishing gearbox designs (with dimensioned drawings and a BOM) for years, and I don't think that has lowered the level of competition. Even if it did make it easier for rookies to write amazing autonomous routines, the competition would still be there--just at a higher level. Plus, I don't think autonomous code from one year will necessarily be applicable to the next (with a few notable exceptions like StangPS). For example, our coolest autonomous routine this year (that never ran.... stupid turret broke) is about 1000 lines of very specialized code; I know that it would be almost completely useless to use much of its structure in the 2006, 2005, 2004, and 2003 games. So, I assume 2008 code will be unusable in 2009 (especially since the control system is changing). In summary, my view of the use of open-source'd robot code is like what Amanda Morrison said about learning to solve a Rubik's Cube:

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

Sometimes, having someone that can teach you just shows you another way to do what you've been doing, but in less moves.

[shawger]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

Since Kevin Watson has expressly stated that he does not want his files re-posted, I am not going to re-post them. It is perfectly fine to GPL my portions of the project. I am also not re-posting IFI-written code as they still hold the copyright whether or not they choose to enforce it. If this project takes off, I am going to make it very clear that people can only license what they own, and nothing more.

JBot

Originally Posted by http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

What does it mean to say that two licenses are "compatible"?

In order to combine two programs (or substantial parts of them) into a larger work, you need to have permission to use both programs in this way. If the two programs' licenses permit this, they are compatible. If there is no way to satisfy both licenses at once, they are incompatible.

Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.

IANAL, but unless I'm reading this wrong, that would imply that the entire program must be licensed under the GPL, which it is not.

[seanwitte]

There have been rules in past seasons that more or less require a full rewrite of the code from year to year. While it would be a good learning resource, the code could not be used without modification on an FRC entry.

[fimmel]

i have a question. if we as a community get together and develop a library of code and make it available to everyone, sort of like what kevin has done, are we legally allowed to use that code over and over?

[trekkiencc74656]

Originally Posted by fimmel

i have a question. if we as a community get together and develop a library of code and make it available to everyone, sort of like what kevin has done, are we legally allowed to use that code over and over?

I dont see why not if we started from scratch and everyone who worked on it gave full access to their source to other teams. We could then have our own version of the default code and include in the licence that it can be used as a refence or starting point for rookie teams depending on how much is included in the release.

[JBotAlan]

[Disclaimer]Realize that this post contains citations from the 2007 Manual. It has no bearing on the 2008 or prior seasons. Do not use this as an interpretation on future Manuals.[/disclaimer]

Originally Posted by trekkiencc74656

I dont see why not if we started from scratch and everyone who worked on it gave full access to their source to other teams. We could then have our own version of the default code and include in the licence that it can be used as a refence or starting point for rookie teams depending on how much is included in the release.

Actually, technically by last year's rules, using last year's code, even if widely published, is *not* legal. Per section 8.3.3 of "The Robot", "the schedule rules apply to both hardware and software development." Per rule <R17>, "absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation." These two rules combined mean that we cannot use any pre-kickoff code on our robot.

I wonder if FIRST realizes that IFI's and Kevin Watson's code were in use...and portions of them were pre-Kickoff...I hope we get a clarification this year.

JBot

[trekkiencc74656]

If we dont know what the rules are yet then why cant we at least write drive code and build the drive train as these are standard between years and should have no effect on the outcome of the match. I mean most teams ours included reuse code from the year before and start working on it prior to the kickoff.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

Actually, technically by last year's rules, using last year's code, even if widely published, is *not* legal. Per section 8.3.3 of "The Robot", "the schedule rules apply to both hardware and software development." Per rule <R17>, "absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation." These two rules combined mean that we cannot use any pre-kickoff code on our robot.

The rules permit COTS assemblies to be used. That applies to hardware in an obvious way, but it can be (and has been) interpreted to let teams use prewritten software from a source like IFI or Kevin Watson.

Originally Posted by trekkiencc74656

If we dont know what the rules are yet then why cant we at least write drive code and build the drive train as these are standard between years and should have no effect on the outcome of the match. I mean most teams ours included reuse code from the year before and start working on it prior to the kickoff.

I would hope that most teams actually followed the rules and did not use code that they developed before the kickoff. I know that several teams with a reputation for strong software skills had to make an extra effort last year to rewrite functions that they could have copied directly from their code archives.

[JBotAlan]

Originally Posted by trekkiencc74656

If we dont know what the rules are yet then why cant we at least write drive code and build the drive train as these are standard between years and should have no effect on the outcome of the match. I mean most teams ours included reuse code from the year before and start working on it prior to the kickoff.

We do our best to follow the rules. This past years' rules said "no" to writing any code at all for use on the final product. If you want to write code as an exercise, go ahead--FIRST has no jurisdiction over your personal time--but do NOT use that code on the robot if it wasn't written inside build season or a fix-it window. That's just GP.

Consider for a moment the newbie team who has no robot to test with, no compiler/IDE to mess with code, and nothing until they get their KOP on the 5th. Your team would have an unfair advantage over that team if you used last year's code--that newbie team doesn't have anything. We are trying our best to keep the playing field level.

Note that it is perfectly fine to use old code as a reference, but even copying snips of it into the new code is against the 2007 rules, and likely will violate rules in 2008 also.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The rules permit COTS assemblies to be used. That applies to hardware in an obvious way, but it can be (and has been) interpreted to let teams use prewritten software from a source like IFI or Kevin Watson.

Aah...now I understand. IMO that interpretation is really iffy, but at least I understand where the teams were coming from. After reading through the rules again, I can understand how this was originally classified; however, because of one word (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by 2007 FRC Manual

COTS – A “Commercial, Off-The-Shelf” COMPONENT or MECHANISM, in it’s unaltered, unmodified state. A COTS item must be a standard (i.e. not custom order) part commonly available from the VENDOR, available from a non-team source, and available to all teams for purchase.

(in my eyes) the code is not legal. Take from this what you will, and if I see it pop up again in the 2008 rules, it's going directly to the Q+A.

My intent was not to lawyer, but rather to show that the rules do not support what every team has done and will continue to do. WPIlib is another package that this rule outlaws, IMO.

OK, I'm done threadjacking...
JBot

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

(in my eyes) the code is not legal. Take from this what you will, and if I see it pop up again in the 2008 rules, it's going directly to the Q+A.

Can you not purchase something for $0.00? Or similarly, one can offer a service instead of money for a purchase. A service like, say, giving Kevin or the writers of WPIlib the satisfaction of knowing that their code is helping young folk learn about software?

[JBotAlan]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

Can you not purchase something for $0.00? Or similarly, one can offer a service instead of money for a purchase. A service like, say, giving Kevin or the writers of WPIlib the satisfaction of knowing that their code is helping young folk learn about software?

Hahaha! I guess that works!

I just wish it didn't feel like a loophole to me...all FIRST would need to do is drop "for purchase." off the end of that sentence, and we'd be all set. But I'll leave that up to them.

JBot