On Warp Pipe, Open Source, Closed Source

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

[bethane]

it closed source providing that all the contributors would hand over the code to the core dev team. It was straight forward because there was only me and one other external developer. After much consideration I did hand over my contributions because I wanted our project to continue. Its not so bad

Umm.. troll?

[FortKnox]

Jeez mods... this is too classic of a troll not to notice.

"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?

[Richard_at_work]

Read it again, nowhere does he say its this project. You misquote the grandparent on his title, it says he "used to contribute to A project". Enjoy.

yeah and....?

[mwheeler01]

If a contributor wants his code to be open source, there's nothing stopping him from releasing the code unless he signed a confidentiality agreement with the project. If a contributor wants his code undisclosed that's his right as well.

Re:WarpPipe are a bund of losers...

[ziggles]

The thing about most users is, they'll use whatever software works best. They don't care if it's open or closed. All you have to do is show them this superior product and they will use it. Saying the other project sucks and the people that work on it as a hobby suck just will just give people a bad taste for the software you support.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the comments [warppipe.com] on their news page about how they have gone closed source and are whining about IP violations:

It was our mistake to keep using Source Forge's CVS, but that does not mean the presence of the code on their server makes it fall under a standard GPL or BSD. Rather, we are using our own license that is totally closed source.

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...

[GweeDo]

"implies the threat of legal action"

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

[Simon (S2)]

to close the source of warp pipe are the management of the developers, they could just leave it open source and don't let people check stuff in. open source doesn't necessarily mean that anybody can change the code. it just means that anybody can *see* the code.

come on Chad, Tushar, Nathan, Aaron: let other people see wat you do!

Re:if the reasons

[Stallmanite]

Actually this is where the term "open source" falls flat on its face. Whether or not code is "open source" has nothing to do with being able to see the code, or so those who invented the term claim. A program is "open source" if you are free to run it, share it, change it, and share the changes. The seeing code is necessary for that, but not the point.

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

[Captain Rotundo]

Who says "let's make it closed source as long as it is still 'free'" ?

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

[EvanTaylor]

Admittedly I do not know what their motives are, but management and keeping multiple forks that are incompatible from existing are two very possible and good reasons for closing it.

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

[Captain Rotundo]

The politics are always more important. And definatly more important than if some kid can play a proprietary piece of software on a proprietary platform over the network.

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...

[BTWR]

Let's be realisitic here... these guys have spent hundreds of hours making this program. Maybe they're looking to be the next Counterstrike or Desert Combat and sell their upgrade back to the company. I applaud these efforts, since I think CS and DC are the 2 best add-ons to any game in the last 10 years. If they get rich from this, it will only encourage MORE fan-written code to be written. And remember, with these fan-made games, only the most popular ones get bought - i.e. Counterstrike already had hundreds of thousands of users, so it was a can't-miss, win-win deal for all.

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.

[gmhowell]

It doesn't matter if it was 'written into the GPL'. The owners of the code can do whatever the heck they please with it. Dual license, multi-license, etc. Even if it were released in GPLvCodeDark, the developers could release it under some other license if they choose.

Re:Wow.

[Squidgee]

If someone wrote that into the GPL, no one would ever use it. Also note if I own the copyright, I can do whatever the hell I want to the code. I can make it "Only I can use it suck off" liscensed. And the liscense I put on something I make can't stop me from changing said liscense. It's my work, and I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

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.

[irix]

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...

[Scorpion_1169]

they have an inferior product.

Their competiton, Xlink, just released yet another version (see http://www.xboxlink.co.uk/news.php?PHPSESSID=57ca4 647d5841480c6cf4f53b0469444 ). XLink Kai 7 supports tunnelling for XBOX, Gamecube, and now PS2.

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

[ezelkow1]

The creators of xboxlink, xbox tunneling software have already gotten their gamecube tunneling to work and are currently working on also implementing ps2 tunneling as announced today on xbox-scene.com . After disocovering the ps2 ilink port is gone on newer playstation incarnations they discovered syslink games can be played over ethernet on a ps2 and started work immediately, but their work on GC was done many weeks ago apparently very easily. http://www.xboxlink.co.uk/

Re:They are too late

[Doomstalk]

Too late? HArdly. Warp Pipe has had functional Gamecube tunneling for months now. It's now in the stage of improving reliablity and adding features.

Bad taste

[ndogg]

Their reasoning for closing the source code is rather weak, IMO. If they didn't want to manage the code coming from other people, they didn't have to, and just say that they weren't accepting outside contributions.

I would have had more respect for the project if they kept it closed source from the beginning.