Open Source License

[IanTheEngineer]

Hi James! I'm thrilled to see your new project open-sourced on github. I have already played around a bit with your model, doing a very rudimentary port of it into URDF format and displaying it in RViz, ROS' visualization tool: https://github.com/IanTheEngineer/opendog_robot

It occurred to me while working with your models, that there isn't a license for your work. Without an open source license, it's not clear who can utilize, modify, and redistribute opendog, and how credit should be attributed to you. I'd recommend choosing a license, adding your copyright to it, and placing it in the openDog repository to be distributed with your code and models:

https://choosealicense.com/

For what it's worth, the licenses for code distributed the ROS ecosystem are typically permissive licenses like BSD, MIT, or Apache 2.0: http://wiki.ros.org/DevelopersGuide#Licensing

[jantje]

If I understood correctly from james his video the licence is GNU GPLv3

[XRobots]

@IanTheEngineer looks great - I should really take the time to learn about ROS, but maybe I will once basic functionality is there.

I'm probably re-drawing the whole thing though from the feel up as I actually design the detail of where bearings and hinges etc go, although it's the same overall concept.

@jantje @IanTheEngineer yes the license is 'true open source' so anyone can modify and commercialise the design if they wish - same as RapRap 3D printers. I think GPL3 fits as that's what Lulzbot are using for printer hardware and software: https://www.lulzbot.com/learn/tutorials/licensing-recommendations

Also they have a copyright license, which is I guess for the 'likeness' of the printer since that should only cover creative works?.

Obviously Creative Commons licensing is used a lot on Thingiverse , but my understanding is that a copyright license can't cover functionality unless it's inherent in the look of it.

[jantje]

I hate licences so I'm not the specialist but if I understood correctly you want people that modify the code to share their modifications. In that case (based on the link above) GNU GPLv3 is the way to go

[IanTheEngineer]

I hate licences so I'm not the specialist

I agree with the sentiment that the license shouldn't matter, but rather just the contribution to open source itself. Alas, no license is in fact a license only to the original author, which is generally avoided by the open source community.

yes the license is 'true open source' so anyone can modify and commercialise the design if they wish - same as RapRap 3D printers. I think GPL3 fits...

I think your assessment that GPL3 is a better fit than Creative Commons for this CAD/software hybrid project is a good one. There are plenty of open source software projects in the world using GPL3, and Creative Commons itself recommends against using their license for software.

I should really take the time to learn about ROS, but maybe I will once basic functionality is there.

I would be happy to help in your efforts to learn ROS, and add it to your robots. I've been using it for years in grad school, professionally, and as a hobbyist. Most recently, I emulated my employer's robot arm using Gazebo for educators & researchers. The learning curve is unfortunately a bit steep, but the rewards are substantial: robotics math toolkits, pre-calculated transforms, path planning algorithms, physics simulators, inter-process communication, sensor drivers, etc. Plus a robust open source community :)

Feel free to contact me via email ian@ianthe.engineer whenever you're ready to dive into ROS.

[XRobots]

Thanks @IanTheEngineer I've added a statement to say 'All CAD and code is licensed under GPL3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html' in each README for RObotX and openDog.

[rjw57]

That's great, @XRobots, I'll open a PR which adds a "COPYING" file to the repo. Then GitHub will mark the repo as being GPL3.

[rjw57]

@XRobots PR open at #4.