On Warp Pipe, Open Source, Closed Source 28
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.
I used to contribute to a project (Score:2, Interesting)
Umm.. troll? (Score:2)
"I was a part of the project" without any backup evidence or really anything to add.... and its modded up to 5? Not to mention this is a troll imposter of bethanie (notice the spelling is 'bethane').
He must be low on karma and needed a boost. Now someone needs to set this straight.
Re:Umm.. troll? (Score:2)
yeah and....? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WarpPipe are a bund of losers... (Score:2)
Just post a link and an explanation for why it's better (an explanation that doesn't involve the phrase "because warp pipe is closed source and it sucks!") and you'll convin
Re:WarpPipe are a bund of losers... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the comments [warppipe.com] on their news page about how they have gone closed source and are whining about IP violations:
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
Re:WarpPipe are a bund of losers... (Score:2)
Well, I am the one that "handed out the link to their CVS", if you want to say that. They did a bit more than threat, they had their realestate laywer call me and start threatening me with the DMCA. The moment he realized I had half a clue and had actually read the TOS they had failed to he started backing down REALLY quickly. It was actually pretty fun. In the end their lawyer said I should say I was sorry
if the reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
come on Chad, Tushar, Nathan, Aaron: let other people see wat you do!
Re:if the reasons (Score:1)
If you can just see the code but not share it, that is something else. I don't think there is a word for that.
They come across very poorly (Score:2)
You either close source to hide IP theft, hide security flaws, OR to attempt to have a better chance of making money on the product.
doesn't make sence to continue to make it freely available, and remove right you were giving away.
of course irrational childish behavoir is par for teh course for a lot of that comunity.
Re:They come across very poorly (Score:1)
If you are interested in getting something to work, you really do not want to deal with having to manage an open source project if you do not need the mind share. I do not know why they did it, but I don't really care either, the product is important, not the politics.
Re:They come across very poorly (Score:2)
I say if your not willing to accept the console makers restrictions, you find a new product, and perhap learn your lesson about proprietary platforms.
be reasonable guys... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bottom line is if they want to make money from it, not big deal. (However, if they did open-source it to get help, then close source it, then sell it for themselves, that might be a little unethical.)
Re:Wow. (Score:1)
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow. (Score:2)
Except for the fact that these clowns accepted sourceforge's TOS and stated the code was under an open source license. Then they tried to retract that while the code was still hosted on sourceforge, stating that if people downloaded it from sourceforge CVS they would be breaking the license.
Sure, you can change the license to your code, but the last GPLed stuff you release remains under the GPL - you can't threaten legal action against people who want to use it.
Also, quite frankly, the code was a steam
They went closed source because... (Score:4, Interesting)
Their competiton, Xlink, just released yet another version (see http://www.xboxlink.co.uk/news.php?PHPSESSID=57ca
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.
They are too late (Score:1)
Re:They are too late (Score:1)
Bad taste (Score:3, Interesting)
I would have had more respect for the project if they kept it closed source from the beginning.