| |
In lugnet.robotics, Dave Curtis wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, Colin White wrote:
> > > This solution is the result of collaboration with the Robotics Academy at
> > > Carnegie-Mellon University on development and commercialization of a new
> > > robotics curriculum using the C programming language. Part of this
> > > development includes a common C programming solution - "RobotC" - that runs
> > > on several different robotics platforms.
> >
> > In its final form will RobotC be available separately from the curriculum, and
> > if so will it be free of charge. Thanks.
>
> What is the licensing? I can't see anything on the web site. From your
> comments, I take it that this will be free-as-in-beer, but *not*
> free-as-in-speech? In other words, is this going to be published under some
> kind of open source license?
>
> -dave
Dick told me in a private email that RobotC will remain a strictly commercial
offering for the foreseeable future due to his desire to earn back all the sweat
equity he has invested in the product. He also urged me to not add support for
his alternate firmware to NQC and BricxCC unless I wanted to face legal action.
His alternate firmware for the NXT is built on top of the official LEGO NXT
firmware sourcecode with the virtual machine from his home-grown fast0103.lgo
RCX firmware running in place of the virtual machine that LEGO contracted out
the National Instruments (which is based on the virtual machine used in
LabView). He uses all the standard LEGO-designed file extensions such as .rso
for sound files, .rxe for user executables, .rtm for sample executables
delivered with the firmware (tm == try me), and .rdt for datalog (which LEGO cut
from the standard NXT firmware). The file format for executables (.sys, .rxe,
and .rtm files) is far simpler than the format used by the NI virtual machine.
John Hansen
|
|
| |
> Dick told me in a private email that RobotC will remain a strictly commercial
> offering for the foreseeable future due to his desire to earn back all the sweat
> equity he has invested in the product. He also urged me to not add support for
> his alternate firmware to NQC and BricxCC unless I wanted to face legal action.
I think I speak for everyone in appreciating the huge effort John has put in on
BrickCC with no financial reward. I also appreciate that certain folks would
like to get compensated for their efforts, which appears to be the case with
RobotC. I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is making an
announcement on this board about a free beta version for testing without making
it clear that if you want to use the product in the future you will have to pay
for it. I think this is dishonest. The developer clearly want their product
tested for free. Rather than supporting this community, the developer is
exploiting it. Further to threaten John with legal action if he supports the new
firmware is beyond words. I intend to boycott RobotC even though it is a very
attractive product because I have a RCX, NXT and VEX.
|
|
|
