I’d like to start this thread by stating that I in NO WAY condone the use of LimeLight software on non-limelight hardware. I am not associated with any team, and no team I have been associated with has (or will, knowing them) use limelight software on unauthorized hardware.
That being said, in the spirit of a thread very close to all of our hearts. How would teams using this software account for it in the BOM? How much of the LimeLight FMV is software? Is it even considered COTS (and therefore legal)?
Borrowing from amboyscout’s interpretation,
As the software CANNOT be purchased separately from a limelight, is the cost just the cost of the LimeLight? Surely the development cost (FMV) is far more than the cost of the LimeLight, most likely even more than the $500 limit. In what is essentially a less trivial rehashing of the aforementioned thread, I ask: Does available for free mean worth $0?
To be clear, you’re talking about a team stealing the code, instead of purchasing a Limelight, correct? If so, that team has bigger problems than what they put on their BOM.
I don’t have the rule in front of me. But using software in violation of its copyright is technically free, but illegal. It is hard to justify using illegal software on a robot.
Although I think downloading the Limelight image is pretty far from stealing as long as it’s made available publicly on the website with no login or key required to use the software, it would be better for a team to just download Chameleon Vision instead of flashing the Limelight image onto an SD card. What features it’s missing would absolutely be worth not dealing with the budget/rules/moral questions that it presents.
So, clearly my former interpretation of the rules is no longer valid for items of software licensed at no cost since they have an FMV of $0 per the blue box in the rules now.
FIRST made it clear that the FMV of software can be the license cost when that blue box message was added.
Now, I am not familiar with the Limelight code licensing, but I never purchased a license, and I bought my limelight used. The software images were provided on the website without any verification or restrictions.
IMO the Limelight software is effectively provided for free. If it isn’t free, it is included in the FMV of the Limelight hardware, meaning that at most the software accounts for 400 dollars of the 400 dollar FMV.
Just list the FMV at 400 dollars, no problems at all.
In the US, software is covered under copyright laws largely conceived of before software existed. So application is sometime strange. Another issue for limelight is the licenses behind the developed software. It quickly becomes something that you need a lawyer to sort out. Maybe @marshall could paint a clearer picture because what I know is mostly the result of late night campfire conversations.
Listen here, now that ain’t workin’ that’s the way to do it
You play the guitar on the MTV
That ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it
Money for nothin’ and your limelights for free
This is what leads me to believe that using the limelightvision software without a licence could be violating the BOM. The cost of a theoretical standalone licence may be far more than the cost of a limelight.
Without seeing the LL licence agreement, one could assume that one licence would be included with the hardware. This would likely pin the FMV to under $400, but not necessarily.
There is no license agreement, and the software is publicly available. Without some sort of license, or usage restriction on the firmware; I don’t see any problem. It would be very easy for Limelight to implement these things if they wanted to. FMV for a vision system would be the hardware components used to create it.
I’m not sure if it extends to the images, but their website certainly isn’t. I’m not sure I see the LL team clarifying the licensing, but it makes me uneasy to see teams using/suggesting the use of the limelight image sans-hardware. Jon and Frank seemed to agree that the software isn’t free (as in beer OR speech).
Without a software license, this is all conjecture. The onus for licencing is on the creators. The insinuation that people are “stealing” freely available software is a leap. What if a team owns one limelight, and they create a hardware analog from scratch? Is that any different than a team creating the analog and using the firmware without owning a limelight? A large part of the limelight code uses software with existing licenses; OpenCV has the BSD license, GRIP has a license on their GitHub. Are those the licenses that apply to Limelight? Until there is a license in place, anybody is free to do whatever they want with the limelight software, without consequence.
