NASA Prepares to Open Source Code

comforteagle writes "According to this story at O'Reilly, NASA is looking for approval for their own open source license. The NASA submitter (lawyer of course) states that none of the current licenses meet their needs, but more interesting is that NASA needs a license at all. It makes one wonder what we, and other space agencies, might see coming out off NASA. It's also nice to see code that taxpayers paid for anyway being released for their use too. There must be at least one slashdotter who could dream up a use for NASA software. X Prize participants maybe?"

Government Copyright

[The Snowman]

I thought all goverment programs were automatically uncopyrighted, not even public domain? Like they were completely outside of the copyright system.

Absolutely

[BWJones]

There must be at least one slashdotter who could dream up a use for NASA software.

Absolutely there is. I can think of a number of potential applications of NASA image processing software to our research in neuroscience. Right now, we are having to either purchase code written for the GIS markets to do what we want, custom write routines in a language such as IDL, or get some computer science graduate students to work for us custom creating code. We are doing the first two and I am going to start recruiting CS grad. students next week, but things might go a lot faster if we already had a source code base to start with.

Old?

[rwven]

Given the ancient hardware nasa still seems to be using on their machines (still essentially powered by '91 era powerpc's) i doubt that the source will be THAT impressive. Maybe i'm way off base though. Most of what they use is probably still some of the original stuff used on them. However, i'm not bashing on nasa here, i'm thinking that some people with some top of the line embeddable hardware will come up with some pretty slick ways of doing things now... I think this is the first step in a need that Nasa is finally getting a clue about....that is, getting out of the early 80's in their space program...

Re:NASA, eh?

[cujo_1111]

When NASA wants to try and buy out the European Space Agency, then you can start making equivalancies between NASA and MS.

Until that point in time, treat NASA with some respect.

Not limited to space applications, by any means!

[Robotbeat]

NASA's first "A" stands for "Aeronatics", and that's only part of their name. Lots of applications can be thought of. For instance, the source for their 3d ranging application would be very beneficial to many people. I mean, the rovers are able to compute their surroundings in 3d using only 2 cameras. The degree of success and repeatability of these 3d measurements far exceeds any other available 3d ranging software. This type of code could be useful for anyone who wants to make a 3d model of something using only a camera and some precise alignment. Indeed, JPL has a lot of experience in robotics and the gain in knowledge when such code is released is sure to be great for anyone in the field of robotics. Even the Darpa robot competition would be different with such technology freely available.

Re:Government Copyright

[hcetSJ]

But I'm sure there are some private contractors somewhere along the line, and so what about their software?

Re:Government Copyright

[overshoot]

The problem is the code written for the Government. Arguably, we should have access to it since we paid for it, but the authors have the copyright. Thus NASA's need for a special written-by-Government-contract-but-licensed-to-the -world license.

Re:Old?

[KrispyKringle]

NASA presumably has far more custom software than just what runs on Hubble, etc. What's in use on the Shuttle might be 8086's, but what's in use on the ground for image processing, navigation control, simulation, and so forth is most likely a lot more state-of-the-art.

NASA does a lot of stuff, and much of it is indeed cutting-edge. Don't discount this so quickly.

Re:Public Doman.

[rwven]

I'd have to disagree. Many Linux distributions are paid for by support donations of people and are non-profit orgs, but their changes still have to be made. We all benefit from nasa's research in the long run, just like you benefit from a distro of linux you use and donate to...

Re:no GPL

[BiggerIsBetter]

They won't touch the existing licenses because they are not affected by locality. I'd imagine this will suffer from the usual export restriction bollocks that the US Government likes so much.

Re:no GPL

[Quill_28]

I completely agree.

It would be flat out wrong for tax supported software to be made and then not be able to be used by businesses that helped pay for the software.

Re:Sweet!

[zcasper]

Check out VxWorks from Wind River [windriver.com].

Liscence???

[snyps]

"but more interesting is that NASA needs a license at all" A political system relies on a set of rules that applies to EVERYONE . If these rules are no obeyed, even if it is the government itself the system falls apart. But even if they did not require one it would still be bad publicity since they would then be thought of as "Big Brother". (-5 flamebait here i come!!!)

Re:Government Copyright

[UnderScan]

Not necessarily so, if the coding was done as a "work made for hire". If made, researched, wrote, composed etc. as a work made for hire, you essentially renouce your copyrights to the employer.
From Section 201, Copyright Act of 1976
(a) Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work.

(b) In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

Re:Sad

[Harry8]

Yes, that's exactly right.
And as I was just looking at the Windows 95 source to fix a few of those annoying bugs I was thingking, "Good thing Microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP stack, otherwise they'd have gone broke trying to sell an OS that 'didn't do the internet' and their code wouldn't be open source."

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be offensive. It's an important point about licensing we should all understand.

Yes, you can check out the BSD TCP/IP stack source.
No you cannot see how Micorsoft ported it to work with Windows 95. So no, the code in Win 95 is not open. Should the problems that piece of code porting presented come up again somewhere else, someone will sweat re-inventing similar solutions. Effort duplication.

So I guess I'm saying that the GPL & LGPL are good enough for me.

Re:ITAR ITAR ITAR

[Fnkmaster]

Wait a second - I don't think you understand the GPL. NASA is only required to provide source code to people who they have provided binaries to. If they have used it internally, they are not obligated to provide source code, though it's generally considered polite to do so if your improvements would be generally useful to the rest of the world. If NASA was selling or distributing binary-only copies of Flight Linux and refusing to provide source code, THAT would be a violation of the GPL.

Of course it would be nice if they'd realize that a Real Time Embedded OS is not a munition or a satellite control system itself. I understand them not wanting to release the apps that run on it, but surely they could contribute most of the patches to the kernel that they use.

Why a license at all?

[ScottForbes]

Can someone explain to me why software written by NASA, a government agency funded by the public, would not by definition belong in the public domain?

Not free software

[jmv]

...each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject
Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following
website...

I doubt this statement satisfies the open-source definition. I am *certain* that it doesn't satisfy the Debian Free Software definition, because it fails both the "desert island" and the "chinese dissident" tests.

Stupid Question?

[LS]

Why isn't all content and source code paid for by tax payers freely available? For instance, you have to pay to get the GIS database available from the USGS. All the source code from every government agency should be free as well. Also, why does NPR keep their content locked behind Real servers? I could go on. Am I missing something here? Shouldn't all this be free?

LS

This is not open-source

[jmv]

(expanding a bit on my earlier comment)
I've read the license quickly and I can definitely say that section 3F will cause problems. Requiring registration does not meet the open-source definition, nor the Debian free software guideline. It discriminates people who either 1) do not have access to the Internel (the "desert island" test) 2) people who can't say they are using the software (the "chinese dissident" test). It also prevents any inclusion in a distribution because it implies that merely buying a Linux distribution that includes the software requires you to register it. If you forget, you are breaking the law (just imagine if all software was released under this license).

Last thing, by requiring registration, this license seems to cover the *use* of the software, going even further that what copyright law requests. The GPL gives you rights that copyright law alone does not give you (e.g. right to redistribute the code), but it does not *remove* rights (line the right to use the software without telling anyone). This also means that to be valid, the license would actually have to be signed (hence it becomes a contract). The GPL (or other free software licenses) does not require that since it only gives you additional rights (if you don't agree to the GPL, you still have all rights provided by copyright laws).

Re:Absolutely

[K8Fan]

Personally, I really, really really want and need the famed VISAR (Video Image Stabilization and Registration) software. This was used recently by to improve the quality in the security camera video in the recent abduction and murder of Carlie Brucia [baltimoresun.com].

"Commercialized by Intergraph"? Where's my check from Intergraph then? If it was developed with tax dollars, it should be open sourced so it can be commercialized (or not) by everyone. That will have the most salutary effect on the economy - not one, but dozens of companies improving the quality of video.

Re:Government Copyright

[Artifakt]

I just downloaded the NSA's version of the Linux 2.6 Kernal, which they are distributing freely as a highly secure Linux. (Truth). Next time I'm there, I'll have to see if they've posted Echelon's source code.

Re:Old?

[mcrbids]

Given the ancient hardware nasa still seems to be using on their machines (still essentially powered by '91 era powerpc's) i doubt that the source will be THAT impressive.

In my experience, the opposite is true. Older code is generally leaner, more stable, and much tighter than newer code.

Crap code tends to get weeded out, and good code tends to stick. Witness many of the key parts of Unix which have remained largely unchanged for decade(s).

Why change what is clearly working well?

There's a perception in the computing industry that "old==bad" and "new==good". But in many areas, the opposite is clearly true.

Security algorithms, for example. Only when an encryption algorithm has been out for a while, beaten up, tested, reviewed, and studied by many peers will people begin to trust it.

There's always the risk of a short-cut to decrypting any algorithm, so, in general, the older ones are nearly always better.

But let's put it to the test... You're getting a pacemaker on which your life will depend. Do you prefer the 15 year old software that has an installed base of many thousands, or the new stuff that just came out last month?

Re:This is not open-source

[laird]

"I've read the license quickly and I can definitely say that section 3F will cause problems"

IANAL, but 3F is phrased as a request, not a requirement. So they ask that people that use their software (or enhance it) let them know, but aren't conditioning the license on them doing so. I'd guess that since it can be ignored, it doesn't really belong in the license, but it doesn't do any harm there.

Almost a dumb comment

[Stephen Samuel]

There must be at least one slashdotter who could dream up a use for NASA software.

My first reaction was along the lines of "hunh?? Is he kidding"

I could easily see a lot of interesting things coming out of NASA labs and projects...

• the rover autonav software could probably find a lot of uses in various areas of robotics..
• Imaging... anybody have even a rough estimate of the number of images that nasa has collected ?? I don't even have to look to be able to guess that they have stuff for cataloging, anotating, organizing arranging, regestering, color correcting, etc.etc.etc.
• GIS systems
• simulations of all sorts
• They probably have software for doing orbital mechanics work (both rough and fine) down to a finer art than most of us thought possible.
• there are probably aeronautical engineers who would slobber over work that they didn't even know that NASA had put together.
• We might even get some interesting open-source project planning and communication software out of them.
• sound filtering systems... and weak signal recovery in general
• Some stuff, although not strictly useful right now is likely to be of some historical interest (if they can still recover it from backups).

If we got full access to all of their software and it was properly categorized, I'm guessing that almost every slashdotter would find something in there that was at least somewhat interesting.

Re:space agencies in other countries too?

[grozzie2]

take the ISS for example. Because we have to keep it in a particular orbit to satisfy the Russians,

The reality of the situation is, the iss orbit is not where it is to 'satisfy the Russians', it's to satifsy the laws of physics. There are two ways to achieve an on orbit rendevous, the first is to go charging up to orbit, and then later maneuver the orbit to match that of the target. This can be hugely wasteful in terms of energy expended in maneuvering. The second method is to wait for the target object to be on an overhead pass, so that a pure ballistic trajectory can take you directly from launch to the on orbit rendevous. This is the most efficient method of launch, allows the maximum payload delivery for a given launch vehicle.

The ISS orbit is determined by simple ballistics. It's where it is to provide maximum availability of direct launch windows from the Kennedy Space Center AND the Balkinor launch facilities. With shuttles all parked in the garage, I suspect there's a lot of folks at nasa today that are quite thankful for the decision to place ISS in an orbit that provides equal accessibility for the Soyuz and Progress vehicles. With no shuttle missions bringing up the groceries, it's very important that those progress launches pack in every possible pound of payload when they do get sent up.

Like everything else in life, ISS decisions are often a big compromise, most compromises are driven by physics, others by politics. To many uninformed folks, much of the decision making driven by physics appears to be political, because they dont understand the reality of the situation. Orbit selection for ISS was not chosen to 'satisfy the russians', but to optimize availability of resources in many scenarios. Lack of shuttle availability was one of those scenarios, and today it's reality. The ISS orbit is skewed a little from optimum shuttle inclinations due to the lifting capacities of the progress vehicles. With 20/20 hindsight, this was a brilliant decision. At the time, it appeared political to americans. It wasn't, it was driven by the need to have contingencies available in the event of prolonged periods of unavailble shuttles. We are currently a year into one of those periods.

Re:Sad

[modipodio]

You would only have to publish the changes you made to gpl code if you intended to distrubute your software publicly. If a company did this and kept their program in house they would not have to publish the changes they made

Re:no GPL

[Speare]

Why should corporations be able to steal code funded by the public?

How is it "stealing"? If it was released to the public, you can light your candle from it and the corporations can light their candles from it. You aren't robbed of light if someone else has it also. I think they should be able to do what they want with their copy. Or are you really just some sort of "IP" shill?