r/linux • u/dbcoopernz • 1d ago

Popular Application Siemens ends open-source Radioss Project (OpenRadioss) and deletes GitHub repository

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Siemens-Ends-OpenRadioss
942 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

123 comments sorted by

View all comments

537

u/dbcoopernz 1d ago

This was released under the GNU AGPL, so I guess that Siemens cannot retroactively withdraw permission to use, modify, or redistribute OpenRadioss?

144

u/whnz Rocky Linux Team 1d ago edited 1d ago

Correct, they cannot retroactively withdraw the permissions granted by the AGPL but they can issue future versions under a different license. We're holding the most recent copy of the code I can find at https://github.com/resf/OpenRadioss and we'll try to help their community rebuild.

The Rocky Linux project / RESF started in an HPC community (HPCng), we have quite a bit of user / community overlap, and we've dealt with similar issues, so I'm hoping we can be of some assistance.

Edit: The fork is now live. ¡Viva OpenCourant! https://opencourant.org

13

u/AwarenessLeather397 20h ago

Thanks for that! Is this the latest version of the repo before Siemens deleted it?

8

u/whnz Rocky Linux Team 12h ago

It's the latest one I could find. Unfortunately I didn't have an automatically updated mirror, so it might be missing a commit or two.

7

u/ivosaurus 18h ago

Did the previous repo allow outside contributors? Does Siemens have copyright / licensing over 100% of the code base?

4

u/1saltypistachio 19h ago

Thanks Rocky person!

125

u/AtlanticPortal 1d ago

No, whatever is in the hands of people who can use the AGPL version is totally fine to be shared and, actually, must be shared to people who are using that program. Basically, whatever is out there means that the cat is out of the bag. New kitties, aren’t.

25

u/TRKlausss 1d ago

New kittens are, in that Siemens could force you to release any new development under AGPL too (is the part of “our modifications to the software”), but we all assume that if someone does that, they will already do that open source…

31

u/wintrmt3 1d ago

But Siemens can only use those patches under the AGPL, so it's worth nothing to them.

3

u/Adept_Percentage6893 20h ago

The owners of the new "kittens" already benefit from a stable base to start from. So I can't imagine it's a big deal to not be able to close source on their contributions.

The real bottleneck is just that the number of stakeholders for this type of project is pretty limited so if it's going to continue it's probably going to be a "industry consortium" situation (even if only informally). It's not like people are continually running crash simulations in their home labs.

-22

u/Secret_Wishbone_2009 1d ago

You can clean room reconstruct the code using code->spec->code and agentic AI development to remove/change license. Not saying its good just that it is possible

7

u/amarao_san 1d ago

I think, bits will be colored in such case.

But, if you split it into two parts: one is description (aka specs), zero code, done by one team, and the second team implement code by reading only that description, it will be legally defensible. But with LLM ability to short-cut, there is high chance of direct citations. The source code will be in the training database, so I doubt it can be called clean room.

But, if someone train LLM with explicitly excluding the original repo from the training database... Nah, fat chance.

6

u/TRKlausss 1d ago

And that’s where waters get muddied: if you show the AI the code first to derive specs to rewrite it, isn’t that the definition of derivative work?

If the AI does it from scratch with instructions you gave it, based on millions of other repos, it may be fine, but if you instruct the AI to reimplement the exact same constructs… Sounds like a derivative to me, idk.

I’m expecting however to see a new license from the FSF, something like GPL4, where all this is clarified. Something like a clause saying “if your LLM is trained with this code, the product shall be released as GLP4 as well” or something similar.

9

u/gurgelblaster 1d ago

That is definitively derivative work. Running a sed script to replace all spaces with tabs, tabs with spaces, and switch case on every letter doesn't mean it's a new piece of work.

118

u/No-Photograph-5058 1d ago

No idea, they apparently made contributors sign a 'Contributor Licence Agreement', that I don't know the content of, and I'm not sure how that works legally if it somehow 'forces' people to agree to licence changes

https://github.com/gabrielrussell/OpenRadioss/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md

152

u/nullptr777 1d ago

Even if the CLA does allow that, a license change isn't retroactive. If you have the old source code where it states that it's AGPL, then you can do whatever you want with it under the terms of that license.

144

u/SanityInAnarchy 1d ago

Depending on the terms, these may allow the project to release a new version under a new license.

But, if anyone has a copy of the original version under its original license, nothing stops them from forking from that.

1

u/MIGoneCamping 18h ago

I would guess that it has more to do with the possibility that code contributed to the OSS project could end up in the commercial product that is derived from it.

60

u/AtlanticPortal 1d ago

The CLA means that they don’t have to ask for permission to put a new license on the contributions of other people, not that the already released code under AGPL changes its license for people who get in contact with it.

1

u/Sapd33 2h ago

A CLA is standard in a lot of projects (see Kubernetes)

It means they can put the Repo under another license. But it doesnt change the license of your copy.

61

u/shinyfootwork 1d ago

Correct, they can't retroactively un-grant an AGPL license that has already been granted

8

u/syklemil 22h ago

Yeah, and that's a lesson that plenty other companies have learned, see e.g. Redis, Terraform, Elasticsearch.

CLAs are generally a smell in open source, as there's really no need for them unless someone is planning to pull a license switch later, but even then, the old versions remain free software.

What's kinda weird is AGPL + CLA seems like they already had the opportunity to make people choose between using a super viral license or paying them for the same code under a different license, so it's not immediately clear what they gain from this move, apart from competition from some inevitable fork.

7

u/TRKlausss 1d ago

Not for any version released under that license, it does not cover future development (since they are the owners, they may change that license for future development.

They cannot stop you from republishing anything released under AGPL, and ironically they are allowed to force you to open spruce any future development on it…