[akidess]

Santiago, I think the guidelines are ok as they are. Yes, you can't sue OpenFOAM for getting bad results, just like you can't sue Adidas if you're unhappy with their shoes. However, using the code from OpenFOAM just like buying shoes from Adidas sets up certain expectations, and it is the fulfilment of these expectations that trademarks try to protect.

Anyway, I do agree as well that the recent developments are positive. Thanks to Alexey for posting the guidelines here.

[pcaron]

Dear Alexey,Alberto,Holger,Santiago,Anton, an everyone else reading

I my opinion the trademark policy is the legal way to say what OpenCFD(r) wants to say, the trademark guidelines is what they really wants to say. This is my opinion and it is ok for me. OpenCFD(r) owns the OpenFOAM(r) trademark, they left open the source code, not the trademark, we must respect this.

As a user of OpenFOAM nothing changes, one has to be careful to cite OpenCFD(r), OpenFOAM(r), FOAM(r), etc using the right way.

It's a different matter if you are a developer...An open question: Where should I develop my code? OpenFOAM(r), the extend project? "Eureka"?

What is the position of the openfoam-extend project? or should I call it eureka-extend project? Are we breaking the trademark policy? Should we change the name of the project? May be start a fork? (This was already discussed previously in this post, I know this, I'm just bringing it to the foreground again)

Best ragards

Pablo

[wyldckat]

Greetings to all!

Pablo, I hope this post can answer to some of your questions:

With the release of OpenFOAM 1.6-ext a few days ago, there is a file named "ExtendProjectPreamble" (clickable name ) in it, which addresses the trademark and naming issues. The paragraph that addresses the naming issue is this:

Originally Posted by ExtendProjectPreamble

In the absence of a legal resolution, we shall refer to the project as the -Extend project and software as "OpenFOAM", as per agreement between Prof. Hrvoje Jasak and Mr. Henry G. Weller of 30 September 2004.

As for developing code, you can read in the file "ReleaseNotes-1.6-ext" the following statement:

Originally Posted by ReleaseNotes-1.6-ext

OpenFOAM-1.6-ext is compatible with the OpenFOAM-1.6.x and 1.7.1 versions of the code and incorporate most developments and changes from above versions and ensure top-level compatibility.

This indicates that applications and libraries developed for either project, should work on the other project as well.
Additionally, the advantage of working with the www.extend-project.de should be that developers will be able to cooperate in code development. Nonetheless, you are free to create independent projects, such as the ones you can read about in sourceforge.net and code.google.com, when you search for the word "OpenFOAM".

Disclaimer: I'm not associated with OpenCFD nor with the -Extend project.

Best regards,
Bruno

[alexey2petrov]

Hi Pablo,

Originally Posted by Pablo Caron

An open question: Where should I develop my code? OpenFOAM(r), the extend project? "Eureka"?

Yes, you hit the point. OpenCFD trademark policy does not touch users, it addresses developers (the most productive and, sorry, most valuable members of the community).
There is a commonplace opinion, that introduction of a new 'trademark' (common name) is gonna to "split our community without a hope of ever reuniting it".
I would say opposite - the community silence, when it is not able to protect its best people (or guide them at least of what to do), is gonna to destroy such community completely.

Originally Posted by Alberto Passalacqua

I am much more surprised by the silence of other parts of the what should be "community"

That disappointment and frustration, which experienced innocent students (they never even had in their minds to monetize their efforts - not like me), is gonna to kill every movement, every desire, every life - everything.

Dear developers of "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"®, the statement was clearly done by "You-Know-Who"©, so

• let's respect the rights, efforts and even desires of the trademark holder;
• let's be honest before yourself and admit that we need to make a decision;
• let's make it firm and simple;
• let's recognize yourself as authors of our efforts;
• let's come with a new, purely community driven, "common name".

What we are afraid of? What are we gonna to lose? What are we gonna to learn?

[makaveli_lcf]

Dear FOAMers!

My point of view regarding this topic - TO MUCH TRADE-MARKING FOR THE OPEN SOURCE!
+ the worst documentation and open support which I have ever met within the Open Source concept...

If the new fork of the project is the solution - I would bring all my efforts to help!
Remember what started the same way? Linux...

[pcaron]

Dear Bruno, thanks for the information. I didn't known about 1.6-ext. I'll download it right now!!!

After reading, everything is clear for me now. I'll develop my application using the extend branch. In my opinion the project fullfills all my requests and it is almost a fork but the name. If we meet at Extend we will free OpenFOAM(r) someday...

Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf

If the new fork of the project is the solution - I would bring all my efforts to help!

I agree with Alexander, I would bring all my efforts to help too!

Best Regards

Pablo

[alberto]

I have read the statements of the OpenFOAM-extend branch even if I have been using the OpenCFD(r) release for my uses, even if one of my projects is on the -extend portal.

The technical developments are impressive.

On the other hand, I am not particularly impressed by the statements I read in the ExtendProjectPreamble and in the Release Notes of 1.6-ext.

What is stated in the ExtendProjectPreamble is what us old OpenFOAM(r) users knew already, and I do not understand how this statement is going to improve the relationships inside the community around OpenFOAM.

• It insists in using a trademarked name for the -extend project
• It leaves everything to a "legal resolution" which is not there, and, as a consequence, it feeds FUD (fear uncertainty and doubts). In other words, it might lead someone to think "Hmm, let's wait and see before we use OpenFOAM". As such, it is not that helpful to anybody involved in OpenFOAM in some way.

Additionally, but this is really a personal consideration, I do not see why it is necessary to read in a technical release note a comment like

* Ongoing developments
This section lists the applications that existed in versions of OpenFOAM but were abandoned by OpenCFD due to lack of expertise.

Whatever is the reason why they removed certain features, there was no real need to clarify it in that way.

In my view, which is the one of an external observer at this point because I use OpenFOAM, but I have no relationship with either OpenCFD or -extend (well I use their portal, but I do not contribute to the code), OpenCFD(r) is part of this community, and it is useless to keep insisting on points that caused already a lot of friction on this forum, with them, and sometime among us.

What I am trying to say is that there will always be important developments made by OpenCFD and important developments made by -extend. There is no point in fighting, poking or digging out old stuff that did not really lead to much in the past, and won't lead to much even now.

It seems, at this point, putting together the two statements, that the climate of tensions is wanted by the community and not by OpenCFD, which, in the end, trademarked a name, and simply does not want its reputation influenced by others. In think OpenCFD(r) over-reacted in the past, when it came to the documentation project, but today what seems clear to me is that the community did not learn much from that experience.

Of course, just my two cents.

[alberto]

Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf

My point of view regarding this topic - TO MUCH TRADE-MARKING FOR THE OPEN SOURCE!

Trademarks and open source have always been there. Check all major open-source projects and you will find out that they all have guidelines on the topic.

With OpenFOAM, the trademark policy led to a long discussion, and since it is a relatively small community, it seems bigger than what it actually is (evidence it was not that important is that nobody did anything to find a true solution).

+ the worst documentation and open support which I have ever met within the Open Source concept...

I absolutely agree on the documentation. However not many, except the usual few exceptions (always the same names), contributed to the wiki either.

About support, offering support for CFD is not a trivial task, and if you want it to be qualified, it takes time. Translation: it is not free.

If the new fork of the project is the solution - I would bring all my efforts to help!
Remember what started the same way? Linux...

There is no fork

Best,

[makaveli_lcf]

Alberto,

in OpenFOAM header files the trademark of OpenCFD is claimed for 1991-2010 years.
OpenCFD is established in 2004 with a release of OpenFOAM under GPL.

About OpenCFD Ltd

OpenCFD® produces the OpenFOAM® open source CFD toolbox and documentation and distributes it through this web site. OpenCFD provides contracted developments, support and training for users of OpenFOAM.
OpenCFD was established in 2004 to coincide with the release of its OpenFOAM software under general public licence. The company was founded by Henry Weller, the creator of OpenFOAM and its chief developer from inception to the present day. The team assembled at OpenCFD each have many years of experience in CFD, and have supplied development, support and training services for OpenFOAM to numerous science/engineering companies, consultancies and universities.
OpenCFD is based in the UK and works with companies worldwide.
OpenCFD is Henry Weller, Chris Greenshields, Mattijs Janssens, Andy Heather, Sergio Ferraris, Graham Macpherson, Helene Blanchonnet and Jenya Collings

So other developers are thrown away in this concept.
Second, I am totally confused regarding following statement:

Open Source Licensing

OpenFOAM is produced by OpenCFD Ltd and is freely available and open source, licensed under the GNU General Public Licence.
There are two main elements to the GPL, designed to prevent open source software being exploited by their inclusion within non-free, closed sourced software products:

1. Software that includes source code licensed under the GPL inherits the GPL licence.
2. If compiled binaries of software licensed under GPL are distributed, the recipient can demand the source code from the distributor.

These aspects of the licence discourage exploitation, because if a closed sourced software product that includes open source software is sold for a fee, anyone purchasing the product could demand the source code and redistribute it for free.
Apart from this, the licence is designed to offer freedom, in particular it does not force users of the software to make modifications or developments publicly available. That means that software such as OpenFOAM can be used as the basis of in-house, proprietary software.

I think, that the last statement is self-made, because the idea of Open-Source software and GPL is that the source code of your software should be open in any case. Because IT IS OPEN SOURCE.

For example, OpenCFD breaks that rule not providing the source code of the documentation (User / Programmers Guides). Just read the U-2 page. PDF file is a compiled binary and the source code of it should be provided by the request. From the GPL licence, included at the very beginning of the Guides, it is written, that they (documentations under GPL) can be even combined with your own documents preserving the original documents being unmodified and preserving all copy-rights.

So there is now copy-right violation in extending, modifying and improving OpenFOAM documentation.

Regarding such money-charged-emphasized support - for my 10 years expereance with the Open Source, it is the first time when I face it even when touches pure scientific questions...

[akidess]

Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf

Second, I am totally confused regarding following statement:
I think, that the last statement is self-made, because the idea of Open-Source software and GPL is that the source code of your software should be open in any case. Because IT IS OPEN SOURCE.

As far as I know that case IS covered by the GPL, see eg. : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....prietarySystem
"The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all."
Ergo, if you don't plan to release your software, you don't have to publish the code.

[alberto]

Originally Posted by makaveli_lcf

Alberto,

in OpenFOAM header files the trademark of OpenCFD is claimed for 1991-2010 years.
OpenCFD is established in 2004 with a release of OpenFOAM under GPL.

That does not say anything to be honest, because I can develop a code today, sell it for a while, release it under GPL in 10 years, and I still have the copyright from today (I transfer it to my company if I change my company name, for example).

This said, we all know the development went on as a joint work of Henry Weller, Hrovje Jasak and probably others at Nabla. It is not relevant for the community. The code has been released under the GPL, and, as such, it can be modified as we want. The only thing OpenCFD asks is to be clear and write that our modified codes are not "OpenFOAM".

The rest should be history, and it is of no interest for the community since it involves only two people, which, according to what has been written in the Extend Statement, agreed to do whatever they want with the FOAM code (not with the OpenFOAM trademark).

What I am saying is simply that the fight on the tradermark should have ended long ago. It did not end because OpenFOAM is a well established name.

The reputation of OpenFOAM comes from two parties. I agree on this, and I am perfectly aware of the huge amount of work, both technical and of "marketing/diffusion of the code", done by Hrvoje. Please, do not get me wrong on this.

I disagree with the choice of keeping the ambiguous name because it has been the reason of a lot of tensions, and I do not think insisting is going to improve things. However that's what has been decided by -extend people, and from what we saw after the problems faced by the documentation project, we will hardly be able to discuss of this openly (if you do not go to a workshop...so much for online communities!).

So other developers are thrown away in this concept.

In part. But keeping the name OpenFOAM does not fix this problem. It actually makes it worse, because to many the distinction between the release from OpenCFD and the -extend release is not clear at all. In other words, each part benefits or is damaged by what is done by the other one, due to the similar naming.

Second, I am totally confused regarding following statement:
I think, that the last statement is self-made, because the idea of Open-Source software and GPL is that the source code of your software should be open in any case.

What OpenCFD wrote is perfectly fine. The GPL says, in short, that if you modify a GPL code and you redistribute it, you must provide the source code to the users. The GPL does not force you to publicly release the modified code.
Example: Let's assume I am a consultant, and a customer wants me to develop a solver with OpenFOAM for a specific application he needs. I develop the solver, and all what I have to do to comply the GPL is giving the source code to my customer. I do not have to distribute it publicly. Also, the customer is tied by the GPL. This only means that if he distributed the solver (a binary), he must make the source code available to who receives the binary, not to everybody.

Because IT IS OPEN SOURCE.

For example, OpenCFD breaks that rule not providing the source code of the documentation (User / Programmers Guides). Just read the U-2 page. PDF file is a compiled binary and the source code of it should be provided by the request. From the GPL licence, included at the very beginning of the Guides, it is written, that they (documentations under GPL) can be even combined with your own documents preserving the original documents being unmodified and preserving all copy-rights.

The rule is only broken if OpenCFD does not provide the source on request. They do not have to provide it in the release, and they might ask you to pay to have it (Remeber: GPL code does not mean free as in "it does not cost any money", it means free as in freedom (you can change it as you want)).

So there is now copy-right violation in extending, modifying and improving OpenFOAM documentation.

No this is not true. There is no copyright violation in extending the documentation. You must simply acknowledge their copyright and their trademark, and add your copyright, as usual.

Regarding such emphasized money-charged support - for my 10 years expereance with the Open Source, it is the first time when I face it even when it touches pure scientific questions...

A lot of open-source projects are based on this business model. Major Linux distributions (Red Hat, SUSE, ...), content management software, development tools, gui's...
And anyway, that's not the topic of the discussion: developing a code as OpenFOAM takes a lot of time, and money is required if you want to have some hope of maintaining the code on the long run.
Additionally, OpenCFD is not the only company to offer paid support. There are WIKKI, ICON, ENGYS...
There are also companies who developed proprietary tools for OpenFOAM (gui, integrated meshing tools/post-processing, ...). Some of them are taking advantage of OpenFOAM without giving a single bit back. The GPL allows that, and nobody can say anything from a legal point of view. OpenCFD at the very least release their developments and maintain a public release of their code, with patches coming regularly through their git repository.

Best,

[hjasak]

Hi Alberto,

Just my two cents: I am very happy to disambiguate further by completely changing the name of the software. The reason it has not been done now is that the release is very late and changing the name at this stage is a ton of work without sufficient testing time. It also seems a bit unfair, because in my opinion in masks the fact that people have contributed to the software and there are dozens and dozens of people and decades of work involved.

This is under discussion with Admins, and I have absolutely no problem with adhering to the Tredemark in all its requirements: chaning the name of the project to Extend goes a long way in this direction.

I personally regret that I did not act more forcefully at the time the Trademark was being set up: the idea I had in front of me was that public collaboration and friendly community work would be the main mode of operation - just like we are working in the community at the moment. My second regret is not cracking the whip when the List of Contributors had been removed by OpenCFD in release 1.3 (or was it 1.2?).

Henrik is trying to establish a continuous git history tree since 2004, which will tell ME all I wish to know and whether I am just being big-headed and with a good opinion of myself or actually doing useful work. In any case, all this is now history - as you say, it is time to write the code and make it better rather than engage in software archeology.

Hrv

P.S. Please don't quote my self doubts in public

[alexey2petrov]

Originally Posted by Alberto Passalacqua

What is stated in the ExtendProjectPreamble is what us old OpenFOAM(r) users knew already, and I do not understand how this statement is going to improve the relationships inside the community around OpenFOAM.

• It insists in using a trademarked name for the -extend project

I recently startled by an opinion that "people use OpenFOAM not because that is the best of open-source, but because they just have no choice". Let's think of about this in a different way. Could we start a community initiative, which would unite all CFD related open-source activities (OpenFOAM or not, Linux or Windows, does not matter).

So, the new idea looks like this:
- form a community driven 'initiative' to make a common place (an incubator, if you like) for CFD related development (what ever it could be);
- in frame of this 'initiative' developers could be supported as from technical, as from law policies. Think about CFD related Apache Incubator.
- to invent and start to use a common name for this initiative, to support the promotion for new development.

One of the most amazing feature of the mentioned Apache Incubator like initiative is that it organizes a brain storming environment, where new ideas could be easily generated, highlighted and come to real from scratch (they recently decided to reincarnate Google Wave project, for example). It is not a project dedicated environment, it is domain dedicated environment. It does not matter, how strong or experienced you are; once you have brilliant idea 'incubator' will stand for it.

I am the author of the following projects:
* pyFoam - a pure Python front-end for OpenFOAM C++ library;
* IFoam - a Python binding between SALOME and OpenFOAM;
* extFoam - a technology that allows redefine referenced OpenFOAM functionality without actually modification of its sources;
* cloudFoam - OpenFOAM related 'cloud computing' (coming soon).

As you see, there are a lot of really good stuff, and not many of it is strictly attached to OpenFOAM. So, I have many reasons to stand out of this game which invented by OpenCFD.

Why would not unite the CFD community in a much more broader, efficient and open way?

[alberto]

Hi Hrvoje,

thank you for your reply.

Originally Posted by hjasak

Hi Alberto,
Just my two cents: I am very happy to disambiguate further by completely changing the name of the software. The reason it has not been done now is that the release is very late and changing the name at this stage is a ton of work without sufficient testing time. It also seems a bit unfair, because in my opinion in masks the fact that people have contributed to the software and there are dozens and dozens of people and decades of work involved.

I agree a name change would not clarify who contributed in the past, and I think it is more than a bit unfair. I also think however that it is in the interest of those contributors to do a step further. I have doubts too about this: OpenFOAM is a well established name, and changing it means repeating part of the "spread the voice" work, for example, and also explain why the name was changed to quite some people. It is not surely a painless operation.

This is under discussion with Admins, and I have absolutely no problem with adhering to the Tredemark in all its requirements: chaning the name of the project to Extend goes a long way in this direction.

Good

I personally regret that I did not act more forcefully at the time the Trademark was being set up: the idea I had in front of me was that public collaboration and friendly community work would be the main mode of operation - just like we are working in the community at the moment. My second regret is not cracking the whip when the List of Contributors had been removed by OpenCFD in release 1.3 (or was it 1.2?).

Well, it happened. Life it too short to think to that too much It was 1.3 according to my records (last time I sent some small piece of code).

Henrik is trying to establish a continuous git history tree since 2004, which will tell ME all I wish to know and whether I am just being big-headed and with a good opinion of myself or actually doing useful work.

Well in my pocket there is no doubt about your contribution, for what it counts.

In any case, all this is now history - as you say, it is time to write the code and make it better rather than engage in software archeology.

Hopefully some stuff will come soon from my side too, after a looooong time. A bit of it is on the portal, but the rest (QMOM and friends, basically what you saw at CSIRO) is in the pipe too.

P.S. Please don't quote my self doubts in public

I'll try

Best,

[PSYMN]

Wow, I just started reading thru this but don't have all day...

My only reaction is "wow", and a new name for OpenCFD... "Not-so-OpenCFD".

I wonder what they are thinking?

[holger_marschall]

Dear Simon Pereira,

please stop bumping this old thread without being constructive on the issue itself.

A lot of time has passed since the Documentation Project, and - though its motivation (the lack of OpenFOAM documentation and the rather steep learning curve of OpenFOAM technology) is still up-to-date and valid - I do think it's time to move on now.

best regards,

[PSYMN]

It was just one bump so I would be cc'd with any future developments...

And now a second to explain the first (but you bumped it too or I wouldn't have come back )

I won't hit it a third time.

But I was glad to hear that this is all over. I saw the same on the Linked in thread.

Thanks....

[GerhardHolzinger]

Sorry for poking into old wounds.

Did the situation change with the aquisition of OpenCFD by ESI?

What is ESIs view on this topic?

[elvis]

Hi,
You could ask that question if you are attending ESI's OpenFOAM user conference,
but I guess nothing has significantly changed. There are the same people in charge of the management&development of OF. That means that there is the same philosophy at work. And in fact, a well documented code base would cost them many customers for their courses.

[niklas]

Originally Posted by elvis

And in fact, a well documented code base would cost them many customers for their courses.

What!?!
LOL
A well documented code base would have a positive influence on the spreading of foam for all.
It sounds to me like you think they are not writing the documentation to have a smaller user base...on purpose.
I think its pretty safe to say that that is not the case.

I am 100% sure that the reason they havent written anything yet is because lack of money and/or time.

Here's how I see it, just as a counter to your view.
The fact they dont let anyone else write their documentation is a sign of quality.
Otherwise, what would prevent a 100 monkeys from doing it?