Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sandia Releases DAKOTA Toolkit under GPL

Posted by Hemos on from the catching-the-bug dept.

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."

12 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Groovy, baby by EvilAlien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)'
  2. Addendum to the article post by Consul · · Score: 5, Informative
    As the submitter of this article, I'm afraid I missed a couple of important things.

    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."

    1. Re:Addendum to the article post by cmowire · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, but it doesn't NEED DOT and NPSOL to work, it can work with the other libraries.

      I bet it sucks without them, tho. ;)

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    2. Re:Addendum to the article post by auferstehung · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note the use of the terms "utilizes" and "optional" in the snippage from the DAKOTA website below. I interpret this to mean that they offer optional features (the non-linear kind) that DAKOTA will use if available, but is not a requirement.

      ****snippage below********

      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)

      --
      Logic is not Divine.
  3. Can this be exported? by cperciva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. Isn't GPL a step *backward*? by Weasel+Boy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Isn't GPL a step *backward*? by Arandir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fully agree. Taxpayer funded software should be placed into the public domain. It doens't matter if this tax money is for defense spending or corporate welfare. If the public paid for it then it belongs to the entire public, and not just a politically correct subgroup.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:Isn't GPL a step *backward*? by jerryasher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I won't disagree with you entirely, but granting a GPL license may actually help promote commerce in certain circumstances.

      In 1989 I worked for Inference. Inference sold a well regarded LISP based expert system shell (ART). It cost a lot of money and ran on very expensive workstations. NASA came along and cloned it with a C application (CLIPS) that was released into the public domain (if I recall correctly.). In many ways, CLIPS was the death of ART, and various competitors came along that incorporated CLIPS and competed in sales against ART. So in similar ways, NASA and taxpayer dollars killed off the main product of the privately held company that developed the initial technology.

      Was it "fair" for NASA to clone ART in that manner? I dunno. It wasn't kind to our paychecks, but that may be irrelevant.

      If CLIPS has been released with a GPL, I think both taxpayer and Inference's private investors would have been served. Inference would not have to worry about competitors being given taxpayer software that allowed them to so quickly catch up with our efforts, and the taxpayers would have been able to benefit by having the code released in a way that brought the high tech ART into schools, research institutes, and to anyone willing to comply with the GPL.

  6. GPL is a good choice by mikosullivan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:GPL is a good choice by Gat1024 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really. If a company wants to include the software in their own custom tool, then they have to release their custom tool under the GPL. Now their taxes paid for that research code just like your taxes did. Probably more so since corporations pay much more tax on average. I hear that corporations and the rich are responsible for most of the tax collected by the IRS but I don't have ratios. I'll see if I can find the link.

      Why can't they use that research code in proprietary work? The original is still there. And the original can still be improved if need be. Any duplication of work would just be

      The public work may actually reduce the cost of the proprietary product since the company can only charge for the value that they add. Any educated consumer can way the pros and cons of using the public version or the proprietary version.

      Maybe even, the product has nothing to do with engineering but the algorithms and/or code works in a completely different domain -- with some tinkering. So now the company must either grow their own solution or give away their jewels. Even though their tax dollars have paid for a solution that is there today.

  7. why was this modded as flamebait? by jerryasher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.