linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

The place to discuss creating, porting and modifying Celestia's source code.
Topic author
astro
Posts: 41
Joined: 27.10.2003
With us: 16 years 11 months

linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #1by astro » 29.03.2008, 18:01

Is there a reason for the linux autopackage to be compiled without theora support?
I haven't checked if this package is compiled with SPICE support but I doubt it. But it would be nice if the autopackage provided on Celestia's website had the same features as the Windows binary (video capture and DE4xx ephemeris support).
I was wondering since SPICE isn't free software if distributions should package 2 versions of Celestia : celestia-free and celestia-non-free (with SPICE support)?

duds26
Posts: 328
Joined: 05.02.2007
Age: 30
With us: 13 years 8 months
Location: Europe

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #2by duds26 » 30.03.2008, 12:19

SPICE here is the name for a standard for orbits, (not sure=>)it's being developped by space agencies.

libspice isn't the same as the program spice, it is just for addin the spice commands in celestia
That spice scripts can be used.

Avatar
selden
Developer
Posts: 10138
Joined: 04.09.2002
With us: 18 years 1 month
Location: NY, USA

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #3by selden » 30.03.2008, 13:06

Astro,

At one time NASA's SPICE couldn't be exported or included in Celestia because it was considered to be covered by the terms of ITAR. That is not the case any more. See http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/rules.html

Or you may be confusing NASA's SPICE (Spacecraft, Planet, Instrument, C-matrix and Events kernels; http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/ ) with the electrical engineering SPICE (Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis; http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Classes/IcBook/SPICE/ ). Free versions of the EE SPICE software are readily available, too.

Someone else will have to comment on why Theora and JPL Ephemeris support aren't included in Linux binaries. I suspect it's because Linux users are expected to link Celestia against libraries that they've downloaded themselves.
Selden

Topic author
astro
Posts: 41
Joined: 27.10.2003
With us: 16 years 11 months

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #4by astro » 30.03.2008, 13:44

selden wrote:At one time NASA's SPICE couldn't be exported or included in Celestia because it was considered to be covered by the terms of ITAR. That is not the case any more. See http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/rules.html

The fact that it isn't covered by the terms of ITAR anymore doesn't mean it's free software.
Below is the disclaimer that appears in the source code of CSPICE.
It doesn't even say if authorisation is granted to distribute source or binary versions of cspice. Celestia being statically linked with cspice contains a binary version of cspice.
I guess NAIF is not against distributing programs statically linked with CSPICE, but that doesn't mean it's free software. Since some linux distributions like Debian are very attentive to software freedom they will probably want to have a celestia package without SPICE. But some contributor could also provide a celestia-non-fee package in the non-free section.

THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS"
TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY
WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC
SECTIONS 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE
SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED.

IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA
BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND,
INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE
REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY.

RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF
THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY
CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE
ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.

It might be possible to have a free Celestia with SPICE support:
1) build a shared object from cspice.a and csupport.a and compile Celestia with dynamic linking. However Celestia would not run without the shared object.
OR 2) use dlopen() and dlsym() in Celestia to load the functions in the cspice shared object only if it is available at runtime.
OR 3) rewrite the routine to read and interpolate ephemeris inside Celestia.

Avatar
selden
Developer
Posts: 10138
Joined: 04.09.2002
With us: 18 years 1 month
Location: NY, USA

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #5by selden » 30.03.2008, 15:22

It's clear that you do not interpret English in the same way that I do. I direct your attention to the statement
THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED"AS-IS" TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND

Note the "publicly available" and "is provided...to the recipient"
I don't know how much clearer they can make it.

If you don't want to use the copy provided with Celestia, you are free to download and use your own copy.
Selden

chris
Site Admin
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28.01.2002
With us: 18 years 8 months
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #6by chris » 30.03.2008, 15:46

astro wrote:Is there a reason for the linux autopackage to be compiled without theora support?
I haven't checked if this package is compiled with SPICE support but I doubt it. But it would be nice if the autopackage provided on Celestia's website had the same features as the Windows binary (video capture and DE4xx ephemeris support).
I was wondering since SPICE isn't free software if distributions should package 2 versions of Celestia : celestia-free and celestia-non-free (with SPICE support)?

I think I figured out the confusion: there is no 1.5.0 autopackage version of Celestia for Linux, and 1.5.0 is the only version with SPICE and theora support. If you want 1.5.0, you'll have to compile it yourself from the source package. We should address this and build a 1.5.0 autopackage. As for whether that should include SPICE support, I'm not sure: others are better informed on the details of free software licenses.

One other clarification: JPL Ephemeris support is independent of SPICE. There's no option to compile without it, and I just verified that the file jpleph.cpp is in fact in celengine/Makefile.am.

--Chris

Topic author
astro
Posts: 41
Joined: 27.10.2003
With us: 16 years 11 months

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #7by astro » 30.03.2008, 16:26

selden wrote:It's clear that you do not interpret English in the same way that I do. I direct your attention to the statement
THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED"AS-IS" TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND

Note the "publicly available" and "is provided...to the recipient"
I don't know how much clearer they can make it.

If you don't want to use the copy provided with Celestia, you are free to download and use your own copy.

For me, "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE" means anyone (the public) can download it not redistribute it, but maybe I do not understand it correctly (English is not my 1st language). Also for it to be free software, the license would have to grant the rights to modify the source code and re-distribute the source code with your modifications as well as the right to use it for any purpose (law permitting) commercial or not. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

Anyway, I have nothing against using versions provided by Celestia, I compiled my own version because I wanted theora and SPICE support. I just wanted your thoughts on how distributions should package celestia with or without SPICE knowing that distributions like Debian would prefer to have a free software version but contributors could also provide another version with code that does not qualify as free software, because JPL ephemeris support is nice and many users will want to have it so that they can play their favorites deep space missions. I just thought it would be good if all Celestia package maintainers were made aware of these important compiling options (theora and SPICE) and the potential license issue with SPICE..

Topic author
astro
Posts: 41
Joined: 27.10.2003
With us: 16 years 11 months

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #8by astro » 30.03.2008, 16:36

Hi Chris,

I think I figured out the confusion: there is no 1.5.0 autopackage version of Celestia for Linux, and 1.5.0 is the only version with SPICE and theora support. If you want 1.5.0, you'll have to compile it yourself from the source package. We should address this and build a 1.5.0 autopackage. As for whether that should include SPICE support, I'm not sure: others are better informed on the details of free software licenses.
There is a 1.5.0 autopackage on the sourceforge website even though the link on the Celestia website is still pointing to the 1.4.1 autopackage.

If the windows binaries provided on the Celestia website have SPICE support, then the linux autopackage should have it too. The distributions that want a free version will build their package without SPICE support if they think SPICE doesn't qualify as free software.

One other clarification: JPL Ephemeris support is independent of SPICE. There's no option to compile without it, and I just verified that the file jpleph.cpp is in fact in celengine/Makefile.am.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought the code to read and interpolate DE4xx ephemeris was in cspice.

duds26
Posts: 328
Joined: 05.02.2007
Age: 30
With us: 13 years 8 months
Location: Europe

Re: linux autopackage compiling options & SPICE legal status

Post #9by duds26 » 30.03.2008, 18:02

The download page needs to be updated with the 1.5.0 build for Linux


Return to “Development”

Who is online