Slashdot Mirror
Sandia Releases DAKOTA Toolkit under GPL
Consul writes " DAKOTA, a powerful toolkit for doing engineering analysis, has now been released under the GPL. Space Daily has the details about the tookkit."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Time to get engineers out from under the misperception that only through whoring themselves to vendors shall solutions be reached.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
First, here's a link to the site for the software itself: DAKOTA
And second, as seen on this page, there are two libraries (DOT and NPSOL) required by DAKOTA that are expensive commercial software products. So, in order to make DAKOTA truly free, these libraries will need to be replaced with GPL/LGPL equivilants. I just wish I had the programming skill to help with something of this scale.
There is a third library needed, called OPT++, that is not GPL or an Artistic license. I'm unable to determine what this library is or its terms of use, as the page that the DAKOTA web site links to is no good.
All of the other libraries needed by DAKOTA are GPL/LGPL, with one using an Artistic license.
-----
"You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."
Given the potential applicability of this to weapons design, I'm surprised the US government is allowing this to be distributed.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Who took the kit?
From the article: "The only restriction is that people cannot take the DAKOTA software, change it, and then sell it," Eldred says. "They can, however, design products with DAKOTA and sell their products."
Isn't that contrary to the terms of the GPL? As long as the source is provided, and the resultant code is released under the GPL, isn't modification and resale legal? Just something that caught my eye in the article.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
'"The only restriction is that people cannot take the DAKOTA software, change it, and then sell it," Eldred says.'
If it is under the GPL they most certainly can. They are merely required to license their version to their customers under the GPL.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Well, for everyone complaining about public risk, private profit... DAYUM!
[o]_O
Our department (structural integrity testing of BR23/07 machines) has been publishing reviews that were competitive with major journals. The thing is, we're academic, so the licensing terms on software such as this has always been prohibitive. Instead, we've been forced to use things like SciVis CFS/SVW, which really doesn't cut the mustard as far as hyperbolic tonicity, to name one painful, painful shortcoming. I actually had to spend quite a bit of time (two and half aweeks) handwriting a template to get back some of the functionality we would have had from the get-go with DAKOTA.
That's time spent away from actually running analyses. So, this is a Good Thing.
In the past, software written in government labs (e.g., LINPACK) was released into the Public Domain. Isn't using GPL actually granting taxpayers less access to the fruits of their labors than releasing the code into the Public Domain?
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-02h.html
- Speech (You won't be jailed for it)
- Beer (Cup fee may be required)
- Crack (The first one is always free)
Please elaborate."What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
GPL is an excellent choice for releasing taxpayer funded software. By releasing the software as GPL you ensure the maximum value for the taxpayer. The software will continue to improve and benefit everybody, including the people who paid for its original development. If it were released under some other license the taxpayer would be less likely to get back improved versions of the software. Don't get me wrong, I'm OK with the BSD license, but GPL is so much better.
Miko O'Sullivan
Notice that there are several GPLed optimization libraries there. That's GOOD news, since writing that sort of routine for high dimensions is not trivial. So, here's the info:
Open Source Release
DAKOTA Version 3.0 is available for download under a GNU General Public License (GPL).
To initiate the download, first fill out the short Registration Form.
Source code tar files and binaries for selected platforms are available, as well as subscriptions to the user notification email list. Please notify us at dakota@sandia.gov if you experience any difficulties. We have started a FAQ for logging any difficulties encountered in downloading, building, and executing DAKOTA. Release notes are also available.
Supported Platforms and Software Dependencies
DAKOTA runs on most Unix platforms including Sun Solaris, HP UX, IBM AIX, SGI IRIX, DEC OSF, and Linux (PC and DEC). It also runs on the Intel Teraflop machine (ASCI Red) and Sandia's Computational Plant (CPlant). A Windows port is not planned at this time (Windows users might consider VMware for Linux dual-boot or a planned capability for XML-based resource distribution).
A transition from non-ANSI C++ to ANSI C++ has been completed for DAKOTA version 3.0. The ANSI C++ version of DAKOTA uses vector and list templates from the Standard Template Library (STL) available as part of the ANSI C++ standard. This allows the latest DAKOTA source distributions to be built independent of any commercial software (DOT and NPSOL are optional extensions). However, for builds on non-ANSI C++ compilers lacking STL, vector and list templates from the commercial product Tools.h++ from Rogue Wave software can be used in place of STL. This will require either a high-end development environment which includes Tools.h++ (e.g., Sun Solaris Workshop) or a separate commercial license from Rogue Wave.
DAKOTA utilizes the following external optimization libraries:
* DOT (nonlinear programming algorithms from Vanderplaats Research and Development; optional extension requiring a separate commercial license)
* NPSOL (nonlinear programming algorithms from Stanford Business Software; optional extension requiring a separate commercial license)
* CONMIN (public domain nonlinear programming algorithms; no license required for inclusion in DAKOTA distribution)
the following Sandia optimization, design of experiments, and uncertainty quantification libraries:
* SGOPT (stochastic global optimization algorithms; available under GNU LGPL)
* PICO (branch and bound for mixed integer nonlinear programs; available under GNU LGPL)
* OPT++ (nonlinear and direct search optimization algorithms; available under GNU LGPL); OPT++ additionally uses NEWMAT09 (serial vector/matrix utilities; conditions of use)
* DDACE (design and analysis of computer experiments; GNU LGPL in process)
* APPS (asynchronous parallel pattern search; available under GNU LGPL).
* DAKOTA/UQ (sampling, analytic reliability, and polynomial chaos expansion methods for uncertainty quantification; part of the DAKOTA GNU GPL license)
* rSQP++ (large-scale optimization algorithms for simultaneous analysis and design; available under an Artistic license)
the following Sandia utility libraries:
* UTILIB (utility library; available under GNU LGPL)
* PETRA (serial/parallel vector/matrix utilities; available under GNU LGPL)
and the following external utility libraries:
* MPI (parallel distributed-memory communication via message-passing; either the public domain MPICH or hardware-specific MPI versions; no license required)
* PLplot (graphics; available under GNU LGPL)
To the extent possible, all noncommercial libraries will be included in the DAKOTA tar files available for download. DAKOTA uses a flexible configuration management system to configure with any desired subset of these available packages. If any of the commercial packages are desired, then these must be licensed separately for source code (preferable) or target platform object libraries (less desirable, but workable with minor configuration modifications). These distributions are then installed in the appropriate DAKOTA subdirectories prior to building DAKOTA.
How about "public" land? The equivalent of public domain is first come first server, squatters welcome, take what you want, no accounatbility.
The equivalent of GPL is take only pictures, leave only footprints.
The mining corps certainly like the public domain attitude.
Seems to me, my tax dollars paid for it, I see no reason why anyone should get it with no accountability. If some company wants to use something my tax dollars paid for, they can damn well pay back in kind.
Infuriate left and right
Took babies, to be exact. Did ya never read The Hobbit laddie?
Infuriate left and right
So why was the parent of this comment modded as flamebait? It is a completely verifiable anecdote involving an occasion when the govt, industry, IP as in intellectual property, and taxpayer funds collided.
So tell me how that was flamebait so I can better post in the future.
Do realize that something like 30% of businesses are corporations, another 10% of partnerships, and 60% or so are sole proprietorships that pay taxes at their owners rate. The lower 50% of the population pays 4% of the INCOME tax.
Those corporations pay 10% of the taxes at 30%, pretty reasonable. Remember those same corporations are paying out salaries to the executives and programmers that pay taxes. They are also paying payroll taxes, etc.
Corporations pay a lot, especially when you factor in their management.
Regardless, you should have EQUAL rights to the government's work, not more.
Alex
...in the Dakotas. Farming doesn't make money anymore, blizzards aren't too fun, and Hostfest & ND State Fair are the same thing year after year. Even Microsoft is slowly closing down their Fargo business unit (which used to be Great Plains Software before the MSFT extend/embrace/extinguish phases).
Fifty years from now the Dakotas will be known as "that Canadian grain distribution point". "Lots of wind generators there, too".
Sigh.
As a long time (10+ years IRIX) UNIX, and short time (5+ years) Linux user. Give us the OPTION of hiring/contracting/investing in Open Source!
Every single time have the option of laying out $100 to $2,000 US for software, I _always_ look for a contractor how has _almost_ done it GPL and am ready to write them a check to finish the job. Mo other option is PAYING FOR SOFTWARE, and I know the more GPL I pay to get done, and more people like me, the less software OVERALL I will have to buy.
So, my comment is simply, put up or shut up!
Sadly, this project doesn't affect me, so I can't offer money for it. But I have offered GPL coders SOO MUCH in the past that hasn't been taken up on, I am SICK TO DEATH of hearing the "closed commercial is better now" arguement.