Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Frees Their Robotics Software

Posted by samzenpus on from the now-everyone-will-make-robots dept.

kremvax writes "It's a field day for robotics hackers everywhere, as NASA releases the first installment of their CLARAty reusable robotic software framework to the public. According to the JPL press release, these modules contain everything from math infrastructure to device drivers for common motors and cameras, and computer vision, image, and 3D processing."

8 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Mod Parent Redundant/Wrong/Just Plain Stupid. by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Err, nowhere in the summary does it mention the JPL as a license, it mentions the JPL as an entity which just so happens to be the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    However if you did RTFA you'd notice that the license shouldn't be considered "Open Source."

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Mod Parent Redundant/Wrong/Just Plain Stupid. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However if you did RTFA you'd notice that the license shouldn't be considered "Open Source."

      No, it qualifies as "Open Source" -- what it doesn't qualify for is being called "Free Software."

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. CLARAty Open Source License- not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    © 2006 California Institute of Technology ("Caltech").
    This software, including source and object code, and any accompanying documentation ("Software") is owned by Caltech. Caltech has designated this Software as Technology and Software Publicly Available ("TSPA"), which means that this Software is publicly available under U.S. Export Laws. With the TSPA designation, a user may use and distribute the Software on a royalty-free basis with the understanding that:

    1. The Software shall not be used for commercial production or sale of any commercial product or derivative incorporating the Software. Should the user desire to use the Software for any such commercial purpose, the user must contact the Office of Technology Transfer at Caltech to obtain permissions and pay the appropriate royalty; and

    2. THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED.

    IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY.

    RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE; and

    3. Caltech is under no obligation to provide technical support for the Software; and

    4. All copies of the Software released by user must be marked with this marking language, inclusive of the copyright statement, TSPA designation and user understandings.
    IANAL, but I don't think this license meets the definition of either free software or open source. The 1st distribution and usage condition says that a user cannot use the software to make a commercial product, and cannot sell it commercially. This violates FSF freedom 0 (and OSI freedom 6), and the FSF's site even specifically states:

    ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.

    As a result, this software isn't "free as in freedom".
    1. Re:CLARAty Open Source License- not really by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NASA contracted them to make software that does X. They let CalTech retain ownership of said software. As a result they were able to pay less for the software than if they had gotten full ownership of it.

      Since they also got the source code this is a perfectly logical way of doing things. Getting ownership would have cost taxpayers a lot more money without giving any benefit to NASA or the taxpayers likely.

  3. Re:lol editors lol style guide lol snape dies by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No seriously, NASA is an acronym not a proper name. National Aviation and Space Administration.
    Kindly get it right. Oh yeah, this is slashdot...

    Nobody enunciates 'en ay ess ay' its just 'nasa'. Its may be an acronym, but its become a word in its own right too, like radar, sonar, laser, scuba, snafu, dos, bios, ram, flak, gestapo, etc...

    Or perhaps if you want an examples of 'proper names'? How about:

    Fiat - Fabbrica Italianna Automobili Torino
    Gulag - Glavnoye Upravleniye Ispravitelno-trudovykh LAGerey
    Gestapo - GEheime STAatsPolizei

    Its really only a matter of time before some of the others become 'words' ... AIDS, SARS, NASDAQ, SETI, NAFTA and NATO spring to mind as likely candidates, I've seen them written out as Aids, Sars, Nasdaq, Seti, Nafta, and Nato, respectively.

  4. Re:Nooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I haven't read the article yet either, but I also have to agree that everyone claiming to have open this or that is getting old really really REALLY FAST.

    If I can't openly distribute it then what's the point? If they have patents covering the stuff then spending hours, days, weeks, months, etc combing through 100K lines of code to glean ideas is pointless, because a) I can't use them and/or b) any improvements I make are still locked down by the original patents.

    OK, now to rad the article :-)

  5. government funded by SoyChemist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anything that comes from a government lab should be in the public domain unless it was developed for military purposes. If our tax dollars were spent to build it, it is ours. Patent protection costs so much that the expenditures often counterbalance the licensing revenue.

  6. Uninteresting license - no commercial use allowed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let me make sure I'm crystal clear on this issue: the US public funds NASA billions of dollars over many years to play about with robots in space, and then the same public is not allowed to use the software THEY PAID FOR to create down to earth, commercial robots? Think again NASA!

    http://claraty.jpl.nasa.gov/man/software/license/o pen_src/index.php