Add netft_utils source for Iron

[Ian118]

Please Add This Package to be indexed in the rosdistro.

Iron

The source is here:

https://github.com/tamu-edu/rad_lab_netft_utils/tree/iron
https://github.com/UTNuclearRoboticsPublic/netft_utils/tree/iron

Checks

• All packages have a declared license in the package.xml
• This repository has a LICENSE file
• This package is expected to build on the submitted rosdistro

Adding @AdamPettinger

[audrow]

Hi @Ian118, I see that the packages have license files, but would you add a top-level license file?

[Ian118]

Yes, I have added it.

[clalancette]

There are 2 main problems I can see with this repository:

1. It is a fork of another repository. While that doesn't automatically disqualify it from being listed here, we typically prefer to use the upstream where possible. Can you describe the reason for the fork, and the relationship between this repository and the one it is forked from?
2. The licensing of it is unclear. In particular, https://github.com/tamu-edu/rad_lab_netft_utils/blob/main/netft_utils/License.txt uses similar text to a BSD 3-clause, but is not exactly the same. Additionally, https://github.com/tamu-edu/rad_lab_netft_utils/blob/f5fd670aaf0a0ffa4054334cbc1f86ff16b99219/netft_utils/package.xml#L15 doesn't clearly state the license.

We can possibly work through that first issue, but because the license is not approved by the OSI, we actually aren't qualified to determine whether we can distribute this or not. Is there anyway those licenses can be made standard 3-clause BSD?

[Ian118]

The reason for the fork is that my lab is maintaining the ROS2 port of the package, however we have pushed the changes to the upstream repository. I updated the pull request to reflect this change.
We have contacted the original authors of the package about the license, and I will let you know if anything changes.

[RobertBlakeAnderson]

Hi, I represent the authors of the upstream repo. I don't know that we can change the license since Los Alamos specified this one for work they have funded. It is, in all practical ways, identical to BSD-3 however. I could reach our to our Los Alamos contact and ask about this.

[mitchpryor]

I understand that this license is what Los Alamos National Labs will use for all software approved for open source release (https://www.lanl.gov/software/open-source-software.php). Would it be possible to get this license added to the approved list? They have several groups increasingly working in robotics so this may be the easier path.

[clalancette]

I understand that this license is what Los Alamos National Labs will use for all software approved for open source release (https://www.lanl.gov/software/open-source-software.php). Would it be possible to get this license added to the approved list? They have several groups increasingly working in robotics so this may be the easier path.

Unfortunately, we really have no way of doing this. We aren't lawyers, so we don't know if this license allows us to legally redistribute it.

[mitchpryor]

That makes sense. I have reached out to LANL to see if we can put the license through the OSI approval process (https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process). I have not done that before, but it looks like it takes 60 days.

[AdamPettinger]

An update: I submitted the license to OSI and they said it should be easily approved. Now just waiting for that to be official

[github-actions]

This PR hasn't been activity in 14 days. If you are still are interested in getting it merged please provide an update. Otherwise it will likely be closed by a rosdistro maintainer following our contributing policy. It's been labeled "stale" for visibility to the maintainers. If this label isn't appropriate, you can ask a maintainer to remove the label and add the 'persistent' label.

[Ian118]

We have submitted the license to the Open Source Initiative and are waiting for a decision.

[github-actions]

This PR hasn't been activity in 14 days. If you are still are interested in getting it merged please provide an update. Otherwise it will likely be closed by a rosdistro maintainer following our contributing policy. It's been labeled "stale" for visibility to the maintainers. If this label isn't appropriate, you can ask a maintainer to remove the label and add the 'persistent' label.

[mjcarroll]

@Ian118 any update on the license process at OSI?

[Ian118]

OSI will review the license at their following board meeting scheduled for September 20th.

[AdamPettinger]

Hello all, the license has been approved, see here

[mjcarroll]

Do you think that you can push another commit to this branch? I think that the CI has gotten stale enough that I cannot re-run the actions here.

[Ian118]

@mjcarroll @clalancette The repository has been pushed, could you review this change?