Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - NASA Nebula: Cloud Computing in a Container (datacenterknowledge.com)

1sockchuck writes: NASA has built its Nebula cloud computing platform inside a data center container so it can add capacity quickly, bringing extra containers online in 120 days. Nebula will provide on-demand compute power for NASA researchers managing large data sets and image repositories. "Nebula has been designed to automatically increase the computing power and storage available to science- and data-oriented web applications as demand rises" explains NASA's Chris Kemp. NASA has created the project using open source components and will release Nebula back to the open source community. "Hopefully we can provide a good example of a successful large-scale open source project in the government and pave the way for similar projects in other agencies," the Nebula team writes on its blog.

Comment Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score 2, Informative) 782

Bjorn was in fact quite right about the source being out-of-date, and his pointing it out helped us track down a pretty boneheaded technical glitch on our side (we were missing a post-update hook). We hadn't noticed it as it only shows up for http access, and we use ssh to access the same repository. It's fixed now, and should remain up-to-date in the future. Apologies to Bjorn and anybody else who accessed the source -- please do a pull to get the latest.

Comment Re:From the original disgruntled developer (Score 4, Informative) 782

Please moderate up the parent. I very much appreciate Bjorn chiming in on this with his side of the story -- and again, I can't emphasize enough just how much we respect his contribution; without Bjorn, there would have been no XPilot to begin with.

I'd like to clarify a few points.

The source is current. The git repository available on the page is exactly the source that we've built each release from, and is in fact the only way the two of use share code with each other; when it's not updated, it's because we haven't changed anything that day.

The message you're referring to where we "went ballistic" was very much an over simplification. If anybody is interested in the actual email he's talking about, I'll be happy to provide it, but this is a mischaracterization. In particular, Bjorn responded to our extending an olive branch by providing a deadline for us to make the game free, and yes, that rubbed me the wrong way; and Bjorn, I apologize for letting my frustration become so evident.

Your points about whether this was fair or not, and the issues of selling OSS, are perfectly valid -- and in fact trying to determine which of our views reflected the majority perspective of expectations when contributing to GPLed software was, in fact, the reason we wished to have this open discussion.

Comment Re:Just make sure you comply with *all* of the GPL (Score 1) 11

Yes, people can run modified versions, with a caveat (which isn't under our control). Apply doesn't allow /anybody/ to deploy code to any non-jailbroken iPhones unless they're a registered developer. So, any registered developer can run modified copies of our code on their phone, and anybody else can run a modified version in the iPhone simulator.

Comment Re:Just make sure you comply with *all* of the GPL (Score 1) 11

Very true -- I believe we do comply, but I'd be appreciative if anybody points out problems. The clause you quote in particular is referring to distributing the GPL as part of the source code (rather than the binary), and we definitely do that.

"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
Classic Games (Games)

Submission + - Ethics of selling GPLed software for the iPhone 11

SeanCier writes: "We're a small (two-person) iPhone app developer whose first game has recently been released in the app store. In the process, we've inadvertently stepped in it, bringing up a question of the GPL and free software ethics that I'm hoping the Slashdot community can help us clear up, one way or the other.

XPilot, a unique and groundbreaking UNIX-based game from the early/mid nineties, was a classic in its day but was forgotten and has been dead for years, both in terms of use and development. My college roommate and I were addicted to it at the time, even running game servers and publishing custom maps. As it's fully open source (GPLv2), and the iPhone has well over twice the graphics power of the SGI workstations we'd used in college, we decided it was a moral imperative to port it to our cellphones. In the process, we hoped, we could breathe life back into this forgotten classic (not to mention turning a years-old joke into reality). So we did so, and the result was more playable than we'd hoped, despite the physical limitations of the phone. We priced it at $2.99 on the app store (we don't expect it to become the Next Big Thing, but hoped to recoup our costs — such as server charges and Apple's annual $99 developer fee), released the source on our web page, then enthusiastically tracked down every member of the original community we could find to let them know of the hoped-for renaissance.

Which is where things got muddy. After it hit the app store, one of the original developers of XPilot told us he feels adamantly that we're betraying the spirit of the GPL by charging for the app (hopefully he'll chime in with a comment below; I'll leave him anonymous for now to avoid further stepping on toes).

That left us in a terrible spot. We'd thought we were contributing to the community and legacy of this game by reviving it, not stealing from them by charging for it — and didn't think $2.99 was unreasonable (and, again, the source is available for free from our page). It never occurred to us that one of the original creators would feel that we were betraying their contribution. We've discussed the philosophical fine points of free-as-in-speech vs. free-as-in-freedom with him, and have suggested a number of remedies — such as reducing the price (it's now $1.99), profit-sharing with previous contributors, making the game free at some point in the future (once we'd at least recouped our costs), or going "freemium" (offering a fully-functional free version plus a paid version with enhancements we added ourselves, with both GPLed of course). But in each case, the bottom line is that this developer feels the app should be free-as-in-beer period, and anything less is a sleazy betrayal of anybody that made contributions under that license. Which is a shame, because we deeply respect his work on this game and would love for him to be on board with the port — but at the same time this was months' worth of work and we honestly believe we're going about this in a reasonable way.

Obviously one of us has a non-mainstream understanding of open source ethos, but it's become clear we can't come to a consensus on which of us it is, and whether the "spirit of the GPL" allows selling GPLed software (especially when one wasn't the original creator of the software but a more recent contributor). The only way to determine that, it seems, is to poll the open source community itself.

We're determined to do the right thing by the GPL and the community. So here's our plan: we'd like anybody with an opinion on this to vote, and if the community feels that ethically this should be free-as-in-beer, we'll fix it by making it free, end of story. In order to make the vote clear and transparent to all participants, we'll use twitter. Remember, we're not talking about whether it's practical to base a business on GPLed software, nor the best business model for doing so, and certainly not whether the source must be distributed for free (obviously it must be), but just whether charging the binary version of an enhanced/ported version of a GPLed app (while releasing the corresponding source for free) is an ethically defensible thing to do.

If you feel that, ethically, any GPLed app must be given away for $0, include "#xpilot #freeasinbeer" in a tweet.

If you believe a binary version of a GPLed app may be sold with a clear conscience (as long as the source is distributed free of charge), include "#xpilot #freeasinspeech" in a tweet.

We'll count the tweets from unique accounts in one week and behave accordingly."

Slashdot Top Deals

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...