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.

5 of 28 comments (clear)

  1. yeah and....? by mwheeler01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. They went closed source because... by Scorpion_1169 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.