Dear All

Can any one sen me the INS2D code

I ,ll be thankful

It is Available freely at http://www.nas.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/software/start

but restricted to US citizen only.

Regards

KK.Khan

Anyone who sends you this is not only violating their agreement but probably export control laws as well!

Dear PC

I think KK.Khan can request for it. In fact science don't has boundary and don't knowe religion and ..., putting such thing means putting some obstacle to advance. Read paper due to S. Zaleski (big cfdman, editor of JCP) about this subject: online awalible from: http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~zaleski/zaleski.html

also i think that high research budget of US and so their outpute is related to all world people not only US citizen (colonialism of third-world country and single-polar policy is not covered for anyone).

kk.Khan, I hope that fair people send to you what you need.

regards, Cris.

Dear Cris

Thanks For your Encouraging Comments, help and suggestions,

All scientific community should think like you,

You are right by saying " that science has no boundary and religion.

i think If some thing is free and not commerical then every one should have access. Why access to some and ban for others.

Regards

Khan

I would imagine that it has more to do with US Tax Dollars spent, than with pure exclusion of foreigners perse...

Wonder if other countries would also not do the same - especially with proximity to defence projects? Sometimes, boundaries are unavoidable.

desA

I am a US citizen, and I have used the code in question. Just because something is available at no cost to some and "not commercial" does not mean that everyone should have access. The code in question is not just available to whoever wants it as long as they are a US citizen. INS2D, INS3D, and some of the other codes from NASA were developed at US taxpayer expense (as diaw pointed out), and are also subject to security-related restrictions. I would not have been given access but for a very specific purpose (that was stated up front). I know several non-US citizens who used the code, but they were also using it for very specific simulations.

I have said this before in this forum. I guess I'll repeat myself: Don't ask for these codes, and if you have these codes, don't redistribute them. It is a violation of the agreement that you have to sign to get them, and anyone who is aware that the code is changing hands should report it.

I think..........

it is beneficial for scientists and engineer to share their ideas and techniques freely

i 'll suggest all to read the article

"Science and fluid dynamics should have more open sources" available at

http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~zaleski/zaleski.html

It describes in about 8 pages why scientists are reluctant to let others see their code.

Kalia

I really doubt jasond's arguments. Please note that many famous scientists come from overseas, but hold US citizenships. Their motherlands cost much money, I believe, on them. What is the benefits of their countries from US? As involved in security, why these things are put on a public internet? Now all the guys in the whole world know that these stuff can only be accessed by US citizen. Strange or not? If the projects aim at the improvement of related research activity in US, Why not try to restrict such activities in your homeland. If want to help worldwide research, why not report your techniques by journal papers? I think German do better for such things. Your current way only makes people think you are showing off something in the front of whole world. It is not wise. Obviously, open source in this way is not acceptable. Why you try to argue to support it. My opinion is that since they happened, US can remain the existing ones, but the new open sources should be avoided coming up again in this way.

You mistake "available at no cost" with open source. These codes are not open source - they are the property of the US government and hence the government can decide who gets them.

Since you specifically mention me, I'll try to respond to the points you make. Please note that I am not defending or attacking the restrictions on INS*D. They are what they are, and the details are the prerogative of the developers. If you are seriously arguing that it is not the right of the developers (actual code writers+US gov) to decide how it is distributed, then I doubt that this will go anywhere. Now:

> Please note that many famous scientists come from overseas, but hold US citizenships. <...snip...>

Non-US citizens have used these codes, and they may have been used overseas. I don't know. Regardless of country of origin, there is a process that the developers have chosen before giving out the code. Do I like it? Not really, but it is not my code.

> As involved in security, why these things are put on a public internet? <...snip...>

They are not on the internet. If you find them on the internet, someone has already broken the terms of the agreement.

> If the projects aim at the improvement of related research activity in US, <...snip...>

All of the algorithms used are published, and the authors of the software have a long publication record on the use of their software. In fact, most of the papers on INS*D are available on the web for free - I don't know how that could be interpreted as "showing off."

>Obviously, open source in this way is not acceptable

As ag has pointed out already (thanks, ag), these are not open source codes. They were developed at taxpayer expense for a US government body. My tax dollars, mind you, and that doesn't guarantee me access to the codes. I have to apply like everybody else. Do I like that? Not necessarily, but it is not my code.

Some of the posters seem to be missing the point. If you want to use somebody else's code, then you need to be willing to accept conditions. If you aren't willing to do that, then don't use the code. There are more and more open source codes out there these days, so it is not like there aren't other choices.

Jason

>jasond ... and some of the other codes from NASA were developed at >US taxpayer expense (as diaw pointed out),

Note that about 30% of faculty people and graduate student of USA universities (high rank and high impact of them) are not native of american, but migrate to USA probably after undergraduate or ..., (especially from asian countaries such as: china, india, japan, iran ...) these poeples use from free education services (in expence of traditional taxpayer in related country) in these countaries and after maturity, realy the best reseachers of those country join to USA researcher, so taxpayer of those countaries has contribution in progress of reseach in USA.

is it correct?

It may be correct but you're still missing the point. Codes like INS2D are not open source and do not belong to the individuals who write the code. They are the property of the US government, and as such the government has the authority to decide who has access to the codes. Violating the restrictions on export access can have serious repercussions, including large fines, prison terms and the loss of security clearances required to work in government-sponsored positions. Whether foreign-born scientists and researchers come and work in the US and pay taxes is irrelevant to the basic argument. These codes are not open source, and to treat them as such is not only illegal but does a disservice to the open-source movement by casting a shadow of impropriety on the legitimate and valuable open-source community.

Thank you to both jasond and ag for clarifying my original point regarding the illegality of distributing the code.

If you are asking if you 30% statistic is correct, I would say that sounds about right. Actually, it might be a bit low, but it would depend upon the institution (or company, or whatever). As for the rest, well... Of course we live in a global economy, and of course the US benefits from research (and researchers) from other countries. I won't repeat some of my earlier statements, but the central issue seems to be that many people don't like the developer of a software package placing restrictions on distribution. Would this be an issue if we were talking about Fluent? (or CFX? or any other commercial software?)

Jason

P.S. I see that ag has posted again before I finished typing - do not discount what he says about the potential repercussions. These are not things to play around about.

Here, what I want is

1, I hope we can embrace a fair research environment in the coming years. Please insist that science absolutely has no bound.

You can argue less 30% faculty people and graduate student are not native of American. But you can never deny that much knowledge originated from other places. How can you demarcate birth places of knowledge? If you think I change my point, please read my previous post.

2, I just hope a scientist should try to share his knowledge with the whole world, if possible.

3, it is not necessary to stand there, and repeat the rules of open sources with restrictions (you can say it is not open source, I do care about what it is). Believe it or not, their users should have not lost the ability of reading. If really happened, it is also your business. Can you let your private thing to be handled quietly?

To jasond,

--any people don't like the developer of a software package placing restrictions on distribution--

You are right.

--Would this be an issue if we were talking about Fluent? (or CFX? or any other commercial software?)---

Wrong. It looks fair at least.

In fact, you can browse all information of the packages only distributed among US citizens, you will find that almost all this kinds of cfd codes mainly focus on compressible, thus more likely related to security of US. But your government put "all information" on internet. Any country can get it through some special way if they think it is really useful. But seldom research men commit this kind of illegal things. Obviously this way has polluted the community of science. My point again: only US government did such stupid things in whole world. Why do you, may be a scientist in the future, advocate them? As what I have claimed in my previous post, you need obey the rules of the existing one because you are a social man and need make a living. But you may make a little change in the future?

Are they clear? If you stand up to say the user should not redistribute&hellip;&hellip;, or something like that. Stop here.

answer to Jason

>Non-US citizens have used these codes, and they may have been used overseas.<...snip...>

Really? the rule seems be broken. Whatever,I know nothing about your INS*D, my research field dose not cover this kind of research. the reason that I response to this post is attributed to your attitude. Why do you try to tell us what to do?

>They are not on the internet. <...snip...>

All information is on the internet. it is easy to find a way to get such kind of codes. But for me, this way will be not good to our research activity. Idea is the most important thing, why do we try to spend much time on some tricks which make the code difficult to read.

>I don't know how that could be interpreted as "showing off." <...snip...>

your goverment is saying in a public like this way: God! I have first produced some stuff, all my family can get them. Come on, Join us, I can give you with no extra requirement, or forget it. Since you have published in the form of journals, you can have a deal in you home. it is enough. but he try to share your family's business with. BTW: a good researcher should prefer to your idea. such a code is more acceptable to a junior.

>they were developed at taxpayer expense for a US government body<...snip...>

Knowledge hardly be evaluated using money. sometimes some guy may contribute more than your tax, but can not access this kinds resource. is it possible? Any way, you have to obey the government's order because you belong to the game. the point is, can you make a little change in the future beyond your obligation? At least you can advocate a good tendency.

>If you want to use somebody else's code, then you need to be willing to accept conditions.<...snip...>

it is not your business.

Dear All

I am sorry that an irrelevant debate start on this forum because of me, Which is not the main purpose of this forum. Although the issue is good to be debated but on some other forum.

I am not an expert but a 1st year graduate student from mathematical background just started learning CFD.

I found some paper of Prof. Stuart Rogers(author of the code) and then try to understand them fully , I submitted the request for INS2D but the answer was that of restriction on Non-US-citizen. So then i posted message on this forum (may be i was wrong, ............ who knows).

I want to mention here that Even if i found the code, it is not so simple for me to understand easily and my work is also not much related to this code and i have no intention to misuse it. This misunderstnading started because of NASA policy, it is not good to stop one for learning some thing because of his nationality. If something related to security then it should not be advertized on public internet. otherwise if someone need, (as Harry mentioned )then he can get it from so many sources.

Thanks for All

Best Wishes

KK.KHAN

Given the Americans reluctance to distribute worldwide (and support worldwide) their codes, I suggest that anyone who believes in the free exchange in technology contact the government labs in Europe or Russia and request the source for their codes. DLR, SNECMA and CERN have codes of equal or superior quality to the NASA codes and I am certain that they would be happy to give them to anyone who asks.

KK. Khan,

If you were denied use of the code by NASA, that needs to be that. I am genuinely sorry that you have been denied access to the code, but it is not my decision to make.

Here is where you are going wrong: Many research groups have their own codes, and they put information about them on the internet. They do not, however, make them available. Many of the software codes developed by government agencies HAVE to be made available on some basis because the code is government-developed. The rules on who can access them are arbitrary and probably unfair. But, as has been noted elsewhere, if someone provides you with the code, they are opening themselves to legal problems.

As I have previously stated, there are open source codes out there that fit you need - which is apparently a code to look at. There are examples here: http://www.cfd-online.com/Links/soft.html.

Jason

This is probably going to be my last post in this thread, as the discussion is taking a rather negative, anti-US, and personal turn. Harry, I have to respond specifically to three points in your last two messages:

> You can argue less 30% faculty people and graduate student are not native of American...

I did not argue this. I said that I thought that number might be too low an estimate. I know of departments where the number has got to be higher than 50%.

>...the reason that I response to this post is attributed to your attitude. Why do you try to tell us what to do?

My attitude? If I know that this code is changing hands without the proper permission and do not report it, I open myself up to legal issues in the future, including actual legal sanctions and inability to obtain a security clearance. This is not a laughing matter.

>Any way, you have to obey the government's order because you belong to the game. the point is, can you make a little change in the future beyond your obligation? At least you can advocate a good tendency.

First, I disagree that unauthorized redistribution of a code is a good tendency. Second, advocating such action would put me in the same position mentioned above. Fairness of the rules is something that can be debated, but the rules are unlikely to be changed by this debate.

I am not defending the restrictions, but I am defending the developer's right to make restrictions (regardless of the developer), and I will continue to do so. This forum is not a place to make such software requests. This appears to me to be the core of the disagreement.

Jason