Redistributable F@H?

[sugar]

The major problem I see with F@H is that the client is not redistributable. It is understandably not open source, but F@H binaries should be legally redistributable so they can be included in Linux distributions and such. What can be done to change this? Discuss?

[7im]

The client is kept safe by preventing redistribution where people could add a trojan or virus if the client was downloadable all over the net. With the internet being almost everywhere these days, having to download the client is not a big hurdle to overcome.

This has been discussed before, so please try searching this forum for more info. Welcome to the forum.

[smASHer88]

Could it possible to say talk with makers of Ubuntu or something so that Folding@Home is packaged in?

[John Naylor]

I think they would have to make an extra configuration screen when installing the distro if they were to do this though (as in to give people the choice whether or not to use the software)... some people would not want to contribute for whatever reason (e.g. they contribute to another DC project or some other reason). I'm not saying that it would take them especially long but just that it would require extra work on their part to package the clients into a distro, if the Pande Group give the go ahead.

[smASHer88]

I think they would have to make an extra configuration screen when installing the distro if they were to do this though (as in to give people the choice whether or not to use the software)

Of course

[toTOW]

From http://folding.stanford.edu/English/License :

Distribution of this software is prohibited. It may only be obtained by downloading from Stanford's web site (http://folding.stanford.edu and pages linked therein) or the web site of one of our commercial partners (Sony, NVIDIA, and ATI).

[John Naylor]

True, but if they make Ubuntu (or whoever) a commercial partner...

[Ivoshiee]

True, but if they make Ubuntu (or whoever) a commercial partner...

Then it is fine.

[sugar]

From http://folding.stanford.edu/English/License :

Distribution of this software is prohibited. It may only be obtained by downloading from Stanford's web site (http://folding.stanford.edu and pages linked therein) or the web site of one of our commercial partners (Sony, NVIDIA, and ATI).

I already know about this. Which is why I am raising the subject to get it changed. I did a search for "redistributable" and found nothing, which has sparked this thread. Regardless, I wanted to present my own reasoning for opening up F@H even the slightest bit.

Alright, here it goes...

I do not use F@H for one reason: It is proprietary. If we want to support a moral cause, the process for finding cures needs to be moral itself. Copyrights and their boundaries are restrictive, not permissive. (The comparison I'm trying to make is like that of democracy in U.S. politics. The question arises: Does there need to be democracy within parties to have democracy between parties? I certainly think so.)

So far, I have heard of no cooperation between F@H and Linux distributions. The administrator of the large overclock.net community (current team rank #11) and was denied permission to include F@H within a linux distro.

The client is kept safe by preventing redistribution where people could add a trojan or virus if the client was downloadable all over the net. With the internet being almost everywhere these days, having to download the client is not a big hurdle to overcome.

My personal take on this is that it's a poor excuse. Furthermore, the issue here is ease and usability.

I don't mean to attack F@H. I trying suggest a change to a problem that has been annoying me for months.

Example: Say someone wants to create a Linux LiveCD they can pop in to an otherwise idle computer to run F@H. You could do this for personal reasons, but you wouldn't be legally allowed to redistribute your linux LiveCD for other people to use.

[Ivoshiee]

Example: Say someone wants to create a Linux LiveCD they can pop in to an otherwise idle computer to run F@H. You could do this for personal reasons, but you wouldn't be legally allowed to redistribute your linux LiveCD for other people to use.

You are wrong here. There is a distro doing exactly as you envision - notfred (http://reilly.homeip.net/folding/). There are likely some more (ex. foldix).
And those distros do abide the FAH EULA.

[bruce]

And those distros do abide the FAH EULA.

It is impossible to run FAH without an internet connection to download assignments and upload results. That same internet connection can be used to download the software from Stanford.

You can't redistribute the software, but you can distribute a link to it. In general, though, distributing a link to anything except the uniprocessor is probably a bad idea. The Windows high-performance clients are still in the bug-fixing phase and may change at any time. The Linux/MacOS high-performance clients are either not available yet (GPU2) or much more stable (SMP) but even that SMP software is still seeing development work.

[Xilikon]

notfred's linux CD do abide by the rules by downloading the client executable file directly from Stanford the first time it's run so it still respect the license terms. For distributions to do this, it need to have a script which download the F@H client automatically from Stanford and install it. Just look at finstall and you have your answer

[bruce]

I do not use F@H for one reason: It is proprietary. If we want to support a moral cause, the process for finding cures needs to be moral itself. Copyrights and their boundaries are restrictive, not permissive. (The comparison I'm trying to make is like that of democracy in U.S. politics. The question arises: Does there need to be democracy within parties to have democracy between parties? I certainly think so.)

The client is kept safe by preventing redistribution where people could add a trojan or virus if the client was downloadable all over the net. With the internet being almost everywhere these days, having to download the client is not a big hurdle to overcome.

My personal take on this is that it's a poor excuse. Furthermore, the issue here is ease and usability.

If you know your client came from Stanford, you can be confident that it has not been hacked. If you get it from an unknown source, it's status is unknown. (Or, putting it another way, if you enjoy infecting other people's computers with new viruses, why not redistribute FAH with a stowaway virus?)

All DC projects that I know about have been hacked in one way or another. It's in the best interest of science to minimize the chances of receiving fraudulent clients and/or fraudulent results. The EULA and the proprietary nature of FAH help to deter that possibility.

[sugar]

Yes, There are various scripts that have been included in distributions that download the client and run it for you. But having to download the client every time you want wastes your time, the computer's time (which it could be using to fold), Stanford's bandwidth, and your bandwidth. It's simply not efficient.

Not to mention, as an open source nerd, it feels totally wrong to be using a proprietary program "to do good." Even Microsoft offers redistributable SDKs (Yes, I just went that low). While I'm at it, Stanford also has the opportunity to open source select parts of their code. It's an academic institution, and they need to encourage the learning process. It also provides for more code scrutiny, where programmers from all around the word can offer code efficient improvements to Stanford and so on. Stanford would have control over the code trunk itself, but access to read components of code may prove more beneficial to both Stanford and programmers.

(... You can see how arguments for opening up F@H have been brewing in my head for awhile.)

If you know your client came from Stanford, you can be confident that it has not been hacked. If you get it from an unknown source, it's status is unknown. (Or, putting it another way, if you enjoy infecting other people's computers with new viruses, why not redistribute FAH with a stowaway virus?)

All DC projects that I know about have been hacked in one way or another. It's in the best interest of science to minimize the chances of receiving fraudulent clients and/or fraudulent results. The EULA and the proprietary nature of FAH help to deter that possibility.

I acknowledge your point. But then perhaps it is the user's fault for downloading a fake or "hacked" client. Besides, the official FAH website should return at the top of the list of search engines queries. Redistribution is an element of freedom.

[7im]

... snip

I do not use F@H for one reason: It is proprietary. If we want to support a moral cause, the process for finding cures needs to be moral itself. Copyrights and their boundaries are restrictive, not permissive.

Which DC project doesn't use proprietary methods? Sure, the fah client is proprietary, but only acts as a file manager to download and upload work units. The fahcores that do all the processing are based on open source software. See Gromacs.org, and the like. See the Open Source FAQ on the project web page. You should really learn a bit more about the software before passing judgements about morality like that.

So far, I have heard of no cooperation between F@H and Linux distributions. The administrator of the large overclock.net community (current team rank #11) and was denied permission to include F@H within a linux distro.

Then you weren't listening, or aren't well informed. Several distros were listed above that help distribute fah (not the actual files, but scripts that download, install, and run fah), and fah does cooperate (when asked and is possible) to provide ways to make it easier to run fah. OC.Net was prevented from distributing the actual client files, but WAS helped with instructions how to use an installer or script that downloads the client from Stanford. And downloading the latest version of the client is usually better. Once you put a full client on a disk, it becomes outdated the next time fah updates the client. Why distribute outdated software? Why not distribute a script to get the lastest software?

Waste of bandwidth? Are you kidding? The client download is a fraction of the updates you typically download when installing a 'nix OS. And even if only running a liveCD, the client download is only a fraction of the bandwidth compared to all the work units that will be coming and going.

The client is kept safe by preventing redistribution where people could add a trojan or virus if the client was downloadable all over the net. With the internet being almost everywhere these days, having to download the client is not a big hurdle to overcome.

My personal take on this is that it's a poor excuse. Furthermore, the issue here is ease and usability.

That is not the only reason, but one that applies in most cases. You are welcome to your personal opinion, but so far, your supporting arguments are not persuasive.

And no offense, but this has been debated several times before. The minuses outweighed the positives, and likely still do, irksome to you as they may be.