The FOAM Documentation Project - SHUT-DOWN
 

Dear FOAMers,

I feel very sorry to announce that I have been forced by OpenCFD® Limited to shut-down the "The FOAM Documentation Project" and to take its website off-line.

I had to take this step because of the actions that OpenCFD® Limited has enforced against me in person (threat of a cease and desist letter), my university resp. my department (even though this was a private project) and the OpenFOAM® discussion forum (threats of post deletion).

Over weeks, I tried to resolve the issue by communicating with OpenCFD® Limited. However, I did not get a response to the pivotal question of "How do I describe and name a project that documents OpenFOAM® without using the word OpenFOAM®?" other than the recommendation to consult an attorney and to conform to their trademark policy. At this point, I realised that finding an agreement is becoming very difficult.

After having consulted with an attorney about all issues I changed the name of the project to "The FOAM Documentation Project" (including website, domain name, LaTex templates, logo), added a disclaimer and changed the description. I replaced the word "OpenFOAM®" by "FOAM", "FOAM technology" and "FOAM technology covering its two distributions OpenFOAM® and OpenFOAM-dev" wherever this was practicable. However, OpenCFD® Limited's position is that the use of the word "FOAM" is prohibited under clause 11 of their trademark policy ("abbreviation of the name") and threatened me with the issue of a cease and desist letter.

I do not know what else to change, facing a financial loss, having troubles with my university and being completely baffled about OpenCFD®'s response to community contribution to OpenFOAM® - In short, I do not see any other way than to give up and shut-down the project in order to prevent further damage.

However, if you do or have any idea, please help!!! I am open for any discussion, hint or tip.

best regards,
Holger Marschall


Please note:
OpenFOAM® is a registered trademark of OpenCFD® Ltd. The FDP and this communication are not approved or endorsed by OpenCFD® Limited, the producer of the OpenFOAM® software and owner of the OpenFOAM® and OpenCFD® trademarks.

I can also only say that i am equally baffled about OpenCFD's decision on this.

You/we are only trying to help in making OpenFOAM® more widespread and available to others.

I really don't see why making extra documentation to be such a big problem, as i see it, it is a win-win situation for OpenCFD®. Better documentation means more users and more users lead to more support contracts, as they are much cheaper than their commercial counterparts.

Until we get an official statement from OpenCFD® I will continue to be confused :confused:

As for ideas to continue the documentation effort I have none until I understand OpenCFD's® motive on the matter.

I'm tired of OpenCFD(r) and their trademark policy. They are more restrictive than commercial codes, which would consider this initiative as pubblicity, and not as something harmful. I'm overly annoyed by the arrogance they put in their answers and the unfairness of the statements they made.

I was ensured by Henry at OpenCFD that they (OpenCFD and Holger) would have reiterated the discussion until all parties were satisfied. When Holger contacted them to review the changes he made, he received a reply from Chris of OpenCFD stating he would have not gone through that.

OpenCFD trademark policy is not clear, incomplete and they do not want to find a solution to the problem they think still exists at this point. I had some hope after privately contacting them, but at this point I think it is time to move on.

I have not the time, the knowledge and the resources what I am going to suggest, but I really feel it is time to fork the project to get rid off of this kind of problems, creating a really open project and start from scratch there. It will be a mess at the beginning, it will fragment the community and it will harm the project itself, I am well aware of this, and this is the reason why I did not suggest this in public before, even if I thought to that for a while.

To conclude, OpenCFD fails to realize a simple point: many users already look at OpenFOAM-dev when they want OpenFOAM, thanks to the huge and amazing work done there by Hrvoje adding more functionality and advanced features.
I really completely fail to see what is the point OpenCFD is trying to make acting in this way, since they could have simply accepted but not supported the project, and enjoyed the benefits of including the documents created in their official distribution (as it was proposed by Holger in the first place).

Best,

That's exactly my point too. OpenCFD perceives the project as a problem, since it could be an obstacle to obtain sponsorship to document OpenFOAM(r). I frankly do not see who would pay to document OpenFOAM. In my opinion, at best, they can write the documentation and then sell it, but a sponsored documentation project is far from what I consider feasible. Who would pay for something like that? Were there offers or at least proposals? I asked this, and I got only vague replies.

I do not expect any public statement from them, but I hope to be wrong. They always developed the code behind close doors, claiming it is required to ensure quality at professional level. They do not provide a roadmap, do not accept contribution if not stripping the authorship from the code and requiring copyright transfer (They claim it is a requirement of the GPL, I fail to see this too, since many open project do not require this. One example: the linux kernel).

Well, we need to find a way, and the are different possibilities. The most radical was suggested before. The second one is to rename the documentation project again to another fantasy name, I can think to "notSoOpenCFDCode" just to make some fun of this annoying situation, and do not refer explicitly to OpenFOAM. I frankly think the first approach (a fork and complete rebrading, once for all) is a radical, painful, but necessary step to try to build a community. Of course OpenCFD could go back on its steps, but I have serious doubts it will at this point.

Best,

Dear Foamers,

I agree with the comments of Alberto.

I also fail to see why OpenCFD is being so restrictive. In one hand, they are using the work of many people that is developing the code, expecting that a cooperative work will helps us all. On the other hand, they are limiting the access to it by controlling the release of specific materials, like manuals, that will improve and greatly promote the usage of the code.

Maybe the decision was made by some MBA Management Geniuses, like George W. Bush, that failed to see the true spirit of OpenSource code.

Regards,

António Martins

hmm.. time to move on to OpenFOAM-dev now!
 

can someone give me the resource link to the OpenFOAM-dev version of the project?

I have realised in last few months that the support for the OpenFoam project is getting worse now. There are still many bugs in the newer version and there s no prompt response from people regarding this.
Being a free user and a loyal one, I would like to support the cause which encourage the free use of openfoam.

regards,

Nishant

You find the instructions on how to build it here

http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Ho...M_the_easy_way

Best,

What about switching the documentation effort to freefoam which should be a OpenFOAM(R) fork.
The aim of the project are explained in the main page.
Xwang

Let's call Him-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named "Voldemort".
voldemort-documentation.org is available.

The attitude of OpenCFD surprises me and saddens me in fact ...

I'm not certain that this protectionism helps them at this moment when the community begins to grow and get organized in a very structured way.

By this attitude and by closing the access to the information (this way) they can certainly lose the potential of a very large community of users. Do they really realize it ? I hope no because it is still the time to make a sign in the right direction and to open a constructive dialogue between all the parts so that EACH will gains at it.

As a user and as many others I would like to see OpenCFD express themselves on this point to know what strategy to adopt afterward: to continue as a teacher to promote this code with the students and the industrials or on the contrary to build with the others a more "opened" project.

To reach these extremes would be, I think, really regrettable for ALL ... while we ALL have on the contrary something to gain ...

Perhaps we can think on which bases an agreement could be found ? To me, we (OpenCFD and the OpenFOAM users) are all pointing in the same direction. Don't forget that the users community is the blood of a software ...

I call up to the intelligence and the willingness of all to find an intelligent solution to this incomprehension.

Regards
François

PS: sorry for my so bad English it's really terrible :)

I think it would have the same problem of "FOAM". I fear that whatever name containing the word "foam" would be considered not respectful of the trademark policy, so if this measure has to be taken, I would like to see a radical change, to stay away from further problems.

I discussed the topic quickly with the Free Software Foundation on their IRC channel, and, even if it is not an official statement clearly, it seems what OpenCFD is doing is formally acceptable by FSF, and the only solution is to rename the project and document the renamed one.

I would like to hear some more comments from community members who are following this thread. It would be much more useful to discuss this in the open, instead than behind the scenes.

What consequences does this have for those that use openfoam for their work? If people publish stuff which has used openfoam in some way or write about it in their thesis, can opencfd force it to be removed? I'm very confused by this.

No, at least for scientific papers. Simply cite them as you would cite other commercial codes, referring to their user's guide and/or programmer's guide.

Hi

what if we don't base the documentation on OpenFOAM?

I mean still use the documentation effort but not let it be limited to OpenFOAM, but opensource/free CFD in general.

OpenFOAM and code-saturne are two of the larger opensource/free CFD packages.

Then simply name the site www.free-CFD-doc.org or something, I know that OpenCFD don't have any copyright on the word free, CFD and doc :) so we should be in the home stretch here.

The documentation/tutorials can then be split up for the different packages and base the documentation on the individual solvers/libraries for the packages, like a collection of scientific papers.

Just an idea

Is this the end?
 

First thanks to Prof.Holger Marschall for his efforts to get OpenFoam(R) documented!

There are already some solution in this thread about avoiding the collision of a documentation with the trademark policies of OpenCFD(R). But in my opinion this is not and will not the only annoyance: Alberto mentioned already some more! What about all those features implemented in the OpenFOAM-dev version, e.g. surface tracking, ggi, GAMG, BiCGstab? Some of them exist since OF-1.4.1 and so many users don't even know that they exist. If they never gonna make it in the "official release"? Probably not because they are from the wrong authors.

I go with the suggestion of Alberto about forking it, allthough this is quite a step and needs a lot of will and power. But this step should be made tight! It should be really open under no ones strange trademark policies, e.g. not that the new MOAFnepO will be registered again by someone else and it all starts over again. Maybe some kind of consortium of universities, contributers, users .. should be founded.

Jens

PS: I have deep respect to the original and all other developers and there work. I also respect that those peoble make a living out of their work. And I think OpenFOAM was/is? a realy great piece of work. But with this restrictions this might be the end of the "closed" OpenFOAM(R)!?

I believe it is a bad idea to segment the open source community backing OpenFOAM. The project has a really nice momentum.
However, I think most people take more than they give and OpenCFD is a company and as such needs to make a profit. It is not easy to publish open source code some people take this for granted and other take ownership not giving credit to the authors of their work.
Maybe OpenCFD would like to publish a book or something and the documentation would be a source of income. I wish all the success to OpenCFD and hope they can achieve the success of other open source projects like linux, mysql, firefox, etc.

I used to think that way too when these problems started to appear. Holger and me tried to discuss this with OpenCFD, but it did not lead to a solution, even if "foam" is a common name and cannot be considered a trademark. The solution of the fork is extreme, and I do not like it myself, since I know what can be the consequences, and the harm it can bring to the community. On the other hand, if it will work and the community will support it, it will be possible to move on with a different approach (after all the -dev version is doing that already). Another downside the lack of compatibility with the release from OpenCFD.

I would say so too. I fail to see how all these artificial obstacles can help to keep it.

I disagree. If it is true that many take more than what they give, it is also true that nothing is done by them to allow users to contribute easily. I discussed also this with them. To contribute a part of code you have to accept conditions that are unfair at best. In particular:

• You need to transfer the copyright to OpenCFD.
• You need to remove (or they will do that for you) the authorship from your code.
• You are requested to write the code "OpenFOAM style" following the "rules". Little detail: these rules are not written anywhere and no formatting style for any editor (it does not take ages to make one for Emacs for example, and it is unbelieavable they do not have one) is provided. I wonder how you can respect them.

Now, my personal opinion is that I can give my code for free to whoever. I'm not paid for the code I write, so I can do that, even if it enables other research group to compete on my ground. But I cannot give up on the authorship, that's something I do not want to do. If I contribute, I want a recognition, or it is like I did not contribute anything.

[quote
It is not easy to publish open source code some people take this for granted and other take ownership not giving credit to the authors of their work. [/quote]

Yes I agree. But the problem is two-way. See above.

This was proposed long time ago to them. If I remember right, they were waiting for sponsorship to do that. I did not see this happen, and more documentation is desperately needed now, not in some year, or it will be difficult to increase the usage of OpenFOAM faster, especially in research and schools, since OpenFOAM it is already perceived as too complicated to use and with a too steep learning curve.

You quoted three projects where the strategy is to keep it as much open as possible. The Linux kernel accepts contributions with a systematic procedure, and they are actually investing quite some time to teach new developers how to work on the kernel (see for example linux.com). mySQL accepts contributions of many kinds. Firefox made contributing a state of art, with their extensions. They are well and alive because they foster community members to help.

P.S. I really think the "right solution" would be to do this together with OpenCFD, as originally suggested by Holger, and I feel there is still time to do that. It is not a competition between parts with different goals in my view. It is mainly a question of different approaches. But again, it won't surely be possible if they won't even try to talk and discuss publicly at this point.

Best,

I do not know if they registered the trademark (probably not) but there is a project called FreeCFD http://www.freecfd.com/

Best,

The issue of trademark policy is a gray one at best and it seems to me that OpenFOAM might be overreaching in their enforcement. However, it is their trademark and they can choose to police it how they see fit. And until someone pushes back, this will not change.

To make it unambiguous, I suggest changing the name to something like "Documentation Project for OpenFOAM". This would be clearer and not in violation of the trademark. If this type of use were in violation, then books like "Excel for Dummies" or "Learn Photoshop in 24 hours", we be in the violation as well - which they are not. There are millions of books and websites written that document the use of commercial products.

Out of my own curiosity, could you post the cease-and-desist letter?

This is in violation of their trademark policy, which, at point 8 says:

Third Parties must not incorporate the Trade Marks into the names of their goods or services unless they have a specific written agreement or licence from OpenCFD Limited permitting them to do so.

Yes. And that's possible because their trademark policies and guidelines allow that kind of use. For example, Microsoft(r) trademark guidelines explicitly allow the use of their trademarks in publications, as long as you recognize them and do not suggest affiliation/endorsement:

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal...e/general.mspx

ANSYS(r) guidelines are somewhat more restrictive than those from Microsoft:

http://www.ansys.com/ansys_trademark...guidelines.pdf

The usage of their trademarks in publication titles might be OK, but you should ask for their permission to be sure.

Best,

Hi cnsidero,

to say that very clear: there was the _threat_ of a cease and desist letter from OpenCFD® Limited and to go to court because of this project. Not more, but I think still more important not less!

Please do understand that as a Ph.D. student I could not afford the costs related to such a letter. Therefore I had to prevent me from _further_ damage - I had already hired an attorney because of the first claims that came from OpenCFD® Limited (after which I changed the project name, its logo and domain).

best regards,
Holger

Alberto,

While I am certainly no trademark expert, I don't believe #8 is enforceable under patent and trademark law. Again, I believe this was written as means to extend the enforcement - whether or not it has any legals ground. But I could be wrong.

In addition, it would seem to me #1 is in contradiction to #8:

Third parties may only use the Trade Marks solely to reference OpenCFD Limited’s software, products and services. Referential use is prohibited if such use would defame or disparage OpenCFD Limited, its products or services.

I.e. Holger's project is referencing OpenFOAM products and not a derivative and obviously would not defame them. However, as a PhD student and no means to legal counsel (although you would think his university has free legal avenues), it is likely too much for Holger to resist their policies, legally enforceable or not, and the argument is moot.

This issue reminds me the problems with Micro$oft, but it seems even worst than Micro$oft , and reflects some attitudes I've seen in the forums. Anyway, Why not using OpenPOAM? All of us know that we are saying... maybe new users must associate it with the brand, but is only a time question. I know it's childish but, it's simple.

Regards.

Point 1 could be read in a broader way to limit the use of the trademark actually, meaning that you can use the tradermark only to reference to their products and services, and not to your own.

No university offers, to my knowledge, free legal support for this kind of initiative, if the initiative itself is not endorsed officially by the same university.

Best,

OpenPOAM is not a solution. Again, it would be too easily considered as a derivative or a modification of the trademark. And it would be quite evident too.

Maybe I am being naive/ignorant of how this works, but could you use number 5 to your advantage?

"A developer who uses OpemFOAM technology's guide to open source CFD software"

In my understanding, that would be OK for the documents.
But what about the domain name and the project description, which was among the things to change? In other words, how can you have a documentation project of a software without being able to refer clearly to it?

To me, the domain name is almost irrelevant as long as it is associated with the project. aka anything generic like "www.cfdguide.com" is fine as long as google/yahoo/bing bring it up when people search 'openfoam help"

I do not think it is not relevant. The trademark policy, if enforced strictly, might be a problem not only for the documentation project but also for other initiatives. It puts in their hands the right to ask for modifications of removal of all contents that, according to them, do not comply with the policy.

So, I think there are three possibilities now:

1. Discuss with OpenCFD(r) a set of use-cases of the trademark where the consent is granted without asking for permission. This is done by other projects, like openSUSE for example, and it works wonderfully. It actually increased the number of community initiatiatives: some user created openSUSE Education, which after a while has been supported by HP on their machines. Some other user is working on other projects like versions of openSUSE targeting a specific goal (home server, multimedia, ...). This possibility implies that OpenCFD(r) is willing to re-discuss a community-based documentation project, and maybe make a proposal acceptable for them and the community (I would add, without any intention of lacking of respect to who wrote documents on the wiki (I did it too), please do not suggest to complete the wiki. The wiki is OK for notes and short documents, but it is too hard to find material there, especially for new users.). Having a proposal of what OpenCFD(r) consider feasible and acceptable to them would be a good step, and we could fix this mess once for all.
2. Choose the hard way, and rename the code, and document the renamed code. This is the approach suggested by the Free Software Foundation when I asked what we could do. I do not like it and I consider it an extreme and painful solution, which is however a necessary step if no agreement is possible. It is a mountain of work, and it will be possible only if there is a serious commitment of the community to support it. It would also mean to break the bridge once for all with the official releases, and maintain the code independently and keep developing it. In other words, it will have a serious impact on the community, on its users and also on the code development, since potentially there will be two different codes after a short while. In the end, it would probably have a positive outcome anyway, but the transition can be painful. All of this can be avoided clearly, but it does not depend on the community.
3. Abandon the documentation project. Well, not really a solution.

At this point it would be nice to have a comment from the developers, whatever it is, so that we can think to how to go on (or not go on).

Disclaimer: OPENFOAM® is a registered trade mark of OpenCFD Limited, the producer of the OpenFOAM® software. This communication is not approved or endorsed by OpenCFD® Limited, the producer of the OpenFOAM® software and owner of the OPENFOAM® and OpenCFD® trade marks.

Nice post Alberto.

I think we are all waiting for the answer of OpenCFD(r) on these points to be able to re-discuss TOGETHER a community-based documentation project.

I encourage everyone (developers, users, ...) to express himself in a constructive way on the subject.

Cheers
François

OpenFOAM-dev...
 

I'm curious now.
If the documentation project represents an infringement to the trademark, what about the sourceforge release -dev? Is it not the same situation?

Dragos

The Free Software CFD Toolbox
 

What could we expect from those who named their software The Open Source CFD Toolbox? I think that the solution is in the book by Stallman.

According to Stallman (2004, Chapter 6: Why “Free Software” is Better than “Open Source”):

... Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did.

This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term “free software.” But companies do not seem to use the term “free software” that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term “open source” opened the door for this.

... The point that he missed is the point that “open source” was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job—it needs your help. That’s why we stick to the term “free software” in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own sake—not just for the convenience they bring—please join us in using the term “free software.”

Stallman, R. M. Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Boston: GNU Press, 2004.

It is a pity there is no reaction form OpenCFD on this matter.

OpenFoam wiki http://openfoamwiki.net/ is down.

Does it depend on the same reason of the documentation project?

Works for me, albeit slow.

yes it's up again for me

OpenFoam wiki http://openfoamwiki.net/ is running... but... Do they have an agreement for using the brand?

Now it's working also for me.

The trademark policy of OpenCFD is very restrictive. According to this policy also the wiki need the agreement for using the brand.