Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

On Warp Pipe, Open Source, Closed Source

Posted by simoniker on from the coals-raked-over dept.

An anonymous reader writes "There's an interview with the developers of GameCube tunneling util Warp Pipe over at the O'Reilly Network. One of the main issues asked was why they elected to close the source code for their project, when they started Warp Pipe originally as an open project. Quick summary: They appeared to use open source as a means to recruit people, but then closed it soon afterwards because they felt that managing an open project would be too much of a hassle compared to maintaining a closed one. I wonder: What are the unwritten 'rules' that the general open source community abides by for opening and closing code?" Although Warp Pipe has created controversy before, it does seem it's now an effective "online service that brings GameCube players together for gaming sessions", something to be applauded.

3 of 28 comments (clear)

  1. if the reasons by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to close the source of warp pipe are the management of the developers, they could just leave it open source and don't let people check stuff in. open source doesn't necessarily mean that anybody can change the code. it just means that anybody can *see* the code.

    come on Chad, Tushar, Nathan, Aaron: let other people see wat you do!

    --
    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
  2. Re:WarpPipe are a bund of losers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the comments on their news page about how they have gone closed source and are whining about IP violations:

    It was our mistake to keep using Source Forge's CVS, but that does not mean the presence of the code on their server makes it fall under a standard GPL or BSD. Rather, we are using our own license that is totally closed source.

    However, if they read SourceForge's Terms of Service, they would have found that using SourceForge requires that the project be licensed under an open source license. Chad (project PR guy) then goes on to whine about everyone else being unprofessional while he ignores SF's TOS and implies the threat of legal action.

  3. Re:Wow. by Squidgee · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If someone wrote that into the GPL, no one would ever use it. Also note if I own the copyright, I can do whatever the hell I want to the code. I can make it "Only I can use it suck off" liscensed. And the liscense I put on something I make can't stop me from changing said liscense. It's my work, and I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

    The GPL merely stops other people from taking your work and then making it closed source. It doesn't stop the owner of the work from making it closed source, and legally it cannot do that.