Quote:
|
The wiki is not affected up to now by the problems faced by the documentation project, probably because it existed before the introduction of the trademark policy (I'm just guessing).
|
I have just came back from a long vacation. And I sigh deeply when I see this post, it's the worst story I have ever heard from this forum.
There's not an easy solution now. The confusion is well presented by these posts: Quote:
Quote:
Now I guess the most probable solution in a few years will depend on the Dev party, depend on what Dev party would response, i.e. Mr Jasak, whether he would like to rewrite some of the basic codes and code-structures and rename it as "Open-CFD-Toolbox" something like that. Hence to avoid the long going inevitable confict. (If I have the ability, I would spend one year to go this way.) Yes, with fully respect to OpenCFD, their great jobs, I understand their claims. So, brothers, I think we have to admit that there won't be a good solution now from our users' side, so, I ask for Peace. Do not hurt. And try our best to be friends. The difficult situation was embedded in history since the early 1990s. In my opinion, the present need, which is not public from our users' side, is the two corporations (OpenCFD and WIKKI) should discuss this more in a deep and long-range-planning way, and then give us an official "joint statement". That would be better, better, and better. But unitil that happens, let's try to contribute to OpenFOAMWiki for now. This is good for all of us now. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just my two cents :D Best, |
I understand that OpenCFD has to defend its trademark but I believe Holger had the best of intentions when he setup the documentation project. Soon they might be suing all students that use the word openFOAM in their theses. :D
|
Where is this thread located, I cannot find it. Deleted?
|
Quote:
Quote:
The intent of this discussion is to make the community know what happened, and also to try to discuss again the possibilities to create a documentation project with OpenCFD(r). Best, |
Quote:
It belongs to the main OpenFOAM(r) forum and regularly listed there. Best, |
Quote:
What is so difficult about using the Find&Replace-function of your favorite text editor? |
Quote:
In my opinion, if there has to be a documentation project, it has to refer to the code name. I find it quite useless to document with artificial names, which would actually make the project harder to find and at the same time would mean ignoring the hostile behaviour we observed towards a community initiative without any kind of commercial or competitive interest. On the other hand, I'm not the original author of the documentation project, and I'm involved only as user and author of some document. I'm supporting Holger because the documentation project is probably the best idea the community around the code had since its birth, and such a kind of initiative is exactly what this community needs. At this point it would be important to know the opinions of community members, who know where OpenFOAM came from and how it evolved in these years. It would be as well important to know what kind of solution (if any) to this problem they would like, what kind of initiative they are willing to support and how. P.S. The statement "there is no documentation to put in any project" is right only in part. It does not take long to document a good number of solvers if there is a structure to follow, and an infrastructure to check and provide the documents. Some documents are ready, and frankly all the time spent by us and OpenCFD(r) to discuss of these formal details could have been spent in a much more productive way, writing documents, on both sides. Best, |
Quote:
You say you are author of one of the documents. Why don't you follow its structure, if it doesn't take long? Doesn't the wiki accept pdf documents? An infrastructure will develop itself if some people provide documentation. Don't talk about the problems, work around them! I could contribute some documentation on the chemistry models, but I'm reluctant to share it with someone who provides an infrastructure without contents. In my opinion Holger did a great job, but I feel uncomfortable when I'm asked "Give me your work. I can distribute it for you". Quote:
And, as a last word, I wonder how the trademark policy can coexist with the software under the GPL. The GPL allows us to distribute and modify the software, although the code includes many of the forbidden words. Instead of waiting for a solution for the documentation project name, how about supporting Holger with funding for a good lawyer to find out whether at least one of these strange policies is valid after all? Who else will contribute 50$ for this purpose? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Before submitting my document I carefully checked that. I do not really want a project with contributors who do not receive recognition or lose rights on their work myself. Quote:
Quote:
Best, |
Quote:
best, Holger |
Is it viable to "rename" XXX-dev code to the name that satisfies the trade mark policy and provide documentation to the renamed code?
I am aware that renaming should cover removing all prohibited words from the code. It should be automated. The similar scheme is followed by CentOS Linux and Scientific Linux. They are based on a well known Linux distribution. Frantisek |
This is my one cent contribution
The Documentation Project For Poor Fluid Dynamicists not even the devil dare challenge this name ..............................Open Source For Ever.............................................. .............. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Formally the only part containing the trademarks are the file headers, the dictionaries and the solver startup messages. The namespace is "Foam", so it should not be a problem, since it is a common name and not a trademark. Of course if the new name will be, say openSMOKE (a friend suggested it :D), probably it might make sense to change the namespace to "Smoke" for consistency, and the solver names accordingly (simpleSmoke, pisoSmoke) . Best, |
What are we talking about when we say "fork"? Fork like XFree and XOrg, two parallel branches, like Debian and Ubuntu, the last based on the first constantly, or simply renaming all the code in every new version of OpenSOAP?
I know we've talked about FreeFOAM, but nobody explained the situation and utility of this fork. In fact we have in the web: OpenSOAP, OpenSOAP-dev and FreeSOAP, what about each one ot them, or at least the the last two ones? Regards. |
Quote:
About the naming, there are different opinions. Someone suggests to use "Foam", which cannot be a trademark, strictly speaking, being a common term. This has the clear advantage of not requiring any deep change to the code, and of maintaining compatibility with the code written by OpenCFD(r) for the same version. Others, me included, think that whatever containing the word "Foam" might be questionable and lead to litigation, even if without actual legal foundation. That's why I would personally stay away from names that might remember the trademark. There are however problems with this choice, the most evident is that even without substantial changes, the code written by OpenCFD(r) would not directly be usable in general on the forked code. All these details have to be discussed in case a fork becomes necessary. To be fully transparent, correct, and avoid rushed decisions, I would suggest to give OpenCFD(r) some time (2 weeks?) to consider what is happening and eventually come out with a proposal to discuss of this with the community. This could be asked with an open letter from the community to OpenCFD(r), if the community agrees, as suggested by someone in private. What do you think? Best, |
If understood right, OpenCFD earns it income from support for and training in OpenFOAM. Then, is it possible they oppose these kind of project because they fear they will lose in sales? That is, they would like to keep the code a bit inaccessible and undocumented... Seems like a funny way of business in that case. Or is there any other obvious reason for their behavior?
Kalle |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:32. |