It is my understanding that PhysX is more comparable to a physics engine, like Bullet Physics or Open Dynamics Engine, both of which Gazebo integrates. Perhaps they could now integrate PhysX as well...
EDIT: When I say "integrates", I actually mean "interfaces with"; you can run Gazebo simulations using either physics engine (although switching between the two is not quite as simple as that).
> Copyright (c) 2015 - 2018, the respective contributors.
> All rights reserved.
Redis (3-clause BSD):
> Copyright (c) 2006-2015, Salvatore Sanfilippo
> All rights reserved.
I'm not convinced you understand open source licensing enough to criticize.
EDIT:
lol, nice edit 'craftyguy. Way to completely change your comment so all the responses lose their context. For posterity, 'craftyguy pointed out that the repository included a copyright notice and concluded it was a very "loose" interpretation of open-source that did "nothing useful for anyone."
Are you implying that something which is copyrighted can't be open sourced? That's not how it works; the vast majority of OSS work is copyrighted by the authors.
In a nutshell, copyright ownership gives the owner(s) the choice to license their work as they see fit. The word "copyright" is often misunderstood as meaning "copying of the work in question is prohibited by law" -- people often throw around the phrase "oh, you can't copy that - it's copyrighted!" -- but that's not what copyright means.
Because the misunderstanding generally comes from people's experience with books, I'll use that as an example.
Say I write a book. As the author, I'm now the copyright owner of that book. I could then sell (or give away) that book under whatever terms I choose. In the real world, those terms usually are something like "you may not make and/or distribute copies", and the rationale should be obvious: if an author's income depends on people buying their books, they're going to have a hard time paying bills if people make (or distribute) copies.
But back to me and my book. My income is independent of any copies sold, and if someone can't afford the book (or is even on the fence), I'd prefer they have access to the information contained therein rather than require they pay me. In my case, what I might do is ask that people pay me if they're willing and able, but allow for people to copy and redistribute the book if necessary. I might also allow people to make derivative works. That would be done by providing a license; that could be, say, one of the BSD licenses, or GPL, or one of the Creative Commons, or whatever.
Now, what prevents someone from saying "Hey, cstrahan has written a cool book; I think I'll just copy it and release it under incompatible terms in which everyone is required to pay me and redistribution is prohibited!"
That's where copyright comes in. I'm the owner of the work, and so I'm the only individual legally entitled to distribute that work under my choice of license. If someone tries to distribute my work under an alternate license, they're in violation of copyright law.
In short, copyright ownership and the terms of (re)distribution are two separate concepts that shouldn't be conflated.
no, open sourced software has copyright, but with a license that fits the open source definition and allows extra rights(be it BSD, MIT, GPL, etc...)
The only software with no copyright is that placed in the public domain, which is usually discouraged as not all countries allow the author voluntarily assigning something to the public domain, as such it's encouraged to selected an extremely permissive license, like the ISC license for example.
