NASA Frees Their Robotics Software

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."

Comments

Neat....

[Anonymous Coward]

Urge to tinker....rising....

Re:Mod Parent Redundant/Wrong/Just Plain Stupid.

[mrchaotica]

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."

CLARAty Open Source License- not really

[Anonymous Coward]

© 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".

Free information = Terrorists with robots

[tacarat]

Seriously. Jonny5 will be sending his manifesto to the New York Times pretty soon.

No, the parent was right.

[gr8_phk]

If you read the license, you'll notice that you are not allowed to use the code for commercial purposes without paying a royalty and getting a different license (this one doesn't allow commercial use). Because of this, it does not qualify as Open Source (OSI definition) or Free (FSF definition) unless you're using another definition for one of these common licensing terms. For once we don't need to debate the merits of one or the other, because this license is neither.

Re:lol editors lol style guide lol snape dies

[vux984]

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.

Nope, you are wrong:

[geekoid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

"The term is most commonly applied to the source code of software that is made available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions."

This has relaxed IP restriction. It can be used by any one for non commercial use.

OS and FS are often combined on slashdot, mostly because linux is both.

this library may not be 'free'

[qw0ntum]

But there does exist another large robotics library that is completely free called Player. The project even has two complete simulators, Stage (for 2D simulation of many robots) and Gazebo (for 3D simulation of a smaller number of robots). Great project for any aspiring roboticists out there.

Article attribution - MrFuture.com

[kremvax]

Hmm, interesting. Slashdot seems to have clipped my article attribution out. This was originally blogged at http://mrfuture.com/ And my quote was lifted directly from there.

Anyone know of a way to fix that after the fact, or does Slashdot dislike via mentions?