On Warp Pipe, Open Source, Closed Source

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.

Comments

I used to contribute to a project

[bethane]

it closed source providing that all the contributors would hand over the code to the core dev team. It was straight forward because there was only me and one other external developer. After much consideration I did hand over my contributions because I wanted our project to continue. Its not so bad

yeah and....?

[mwheeler01]

If a contributor wants his code to be open source, there's nothing stopping him from releasing the code unless he signed a confidentiality agreement with the project. If a contributor wants his code undisclosed that's his right as well.

if the reasons

[Simon (S2)]

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!

be reasonable guys...

[BTWR]

Let's be realisitic here... these guys have spent hundreds of hours making this program. Maybe they're looking to be the next Counterstrike or Desert Combat and sell their upgrade back to the company. I applaud these efforts, since I think CS and DC are the 2 best add-ons to any game in the last 10 years. If they get rich from this, it will only encourage MORE fan-written code to be written. And remember, with these fan-made games, only the most popular ones get bought - i.e. Counterstrike already had hundreds of thousands of users, so it was a can't-miss, win-win deal for all.

Bottom line is if they want to make money from it, not big deal. (However, if they did open-source it to get help, then close source it, then sell it for themselves, that might be a little unethical.)

Re:WarpPipe are a bund of losers...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wow.

[Squidgee]

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.

They went closed source because...

[Scorpion_1169]

they have an inferior product.

Their competiton, Xlink, just released yet another version (see http://www.xboxlink.co.uk/news.php?PHPSESSID=57ca4 647d5841480c6cf4f53b0469444 ). XLink Kai 7 supports tunnelling for XBOX, Gamecube, and now PS2.

Wave Bird had previously accused the XLink team of 'stealing' their open source code, but from what I've heard from testers, XLink runs much more smoothly than Wave Bird. Multi-platform and better speed in a shorter time frame, I would be hiding my code too.

Bad taste

[ndogg]

Their reasoning for closing the source code is rather weak, IMO. If they didn't want to manage the code coming from other people, they didn't have to, and just say that they weren't accepting outside contributions.

I would have had more respect for the project if they kept it closed source from the beginning.