Hello, Here's what we meant. Version 2.1 is GPL, and will always be GPL. Any changes that anyone makes to our software will also always be GPL. However, legally, any changes *WE* make to our software (as long as it doesn't use anything done by anyone else), does not *have* to be GPL. In fact, legally, we could re-release 2.1 under a completely different license. We still hold the copyright to the software, so we can do this. Any author of a GPL package can do this. No one does, and we don't plan to, but our lawyer, who is already torqued off at us for releasing our software under GPL wanted us to include this caveat. Basically, if you write software, and own the copyright to it, and then release it under GPL, the GPL applies to everyone BUT you. This doesn't mean you can do what you want w/ code that others have written, but you can do whatever you want w/ code you have written. Licensing under the GPL doesn't give away the copyright holder's rights to the work. In fact, I specifically spoke w/ someone I consider a GPL expert about the matter. Hope this makes sense...
Actually, although it's been lost in the shuffle, the kind folks at CMU have released a Java communications protocol which works with Cye. It runs just fine under linux, and is available at:
Hello, A few comments on why we released our source code. First, it wasn't so we could lay off programmers. We only really have one full time software person, and there's no way we could afford to lose him. Second, it wasn't because the code was too big - we're handling it just fine right now, even with 1.2 people doing software. Part of that statement is true, though. We currently do not have the resources to do linux/Mac development. There are two options then, we can either ignore these communities, as we have been doing, or we can TRY to jump start something by giving away what we have developed, in the hopes that others will take an interest, and develop the software for other platforms, either based on our code, or something completely new, using our code as an example of what CAN be done.
If this happens, do we profit from this? Of course we do. The best part of our job is that we get to build really cool devices, and promote their use. The second part is that we have to sell robots to survive. If our robot works on more platforms, we can sell more robots. So, this isn't a COMPLETELY altruistic decision, but in large part, we WANT others to be able to do cool things with our robots, because we love what we do, and we hope others will have fun with the fruits of our efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello,
Here's what we meant. Version 2.1 is GPL, and will always be GPL. Any changes that anyone makes to our software will also always be GPL. However, legally, any changes *WE* make to our software (as long as it doesn't use anything done by anyone else), does not *have* to be GPL. In fact, legally, we could re-release 2.1 under a completely different license. We still hold the copyright to the software, so we can do this. Any author of a GPL package can do this. No one does, and we don't plan to, but our lawyer, who is already torqued off at us for releasing our software under GPL wanted us to include this caveat. Basically, if you write software, and own the copyright to it, and then release it under GPL, the GPL applies to everyone BUT you. This doesn't mean you can do what you want w/ code that others have written, but you can do whatever you want w/ code you have written. Licensing under the GPL doesn't give away the copyright holder's rights to the work. In fact, I specifically spoke w/ someone I consider a GPL expert about the matter. Hope this makes sense...
Parag Batavia
Probotics, Inc.
Actually, although it's been lost in the shuffle, the kind folks at CMU have released a Java communications protocol which works with Cye. It runs just fine under linux, and is available at:
http://www.teambots.org
Parag Batavia
parag@personalrobots.com
Hello,
A few comments on why we released our source code. First, it wasn't so we could lay off programmers. We only really have one full time software person, and there's no way we could afford to lose him. Second, it wasn't because the code was too big - we're handling it just fine right now, even with 1.2 people doing software. Part of that statement is true, though. We currently do not have the resources to do linux/Mac development. There are two options then, we can either ignore these communities, as we have been doing, or we can TRY to jump start something by giving away what we have developed, in the hopes that others will take an interest, and develop the software for other platforms, either based on our code, or something completely new, using our code as an example of what CAN be done.
If this happens, do we profit from this? Of course we do. The best part of our job is that we get to build really cool devices, and promote their use. The second part is that we have to sell robots to survive. If our robot works on more platforms, we can sell more robots. So, this isn't a COMPLETELY altruistic decision, but in large part, we WANT others to be able to do cool things with our robots, because we love what we do, and we hope others will have fun with the fruits of our efforts.
Comments/questions can be directed to:
parag@personalrobots.com
Parag