Dear Takanori,

the time-limited versions exist for the sole purpose of keeping the package maintainable, not for annoying users. There is only Wolfgang Kabsch (semi-retired) and me (in my spare time) who maintain the package, and there is no funding for its development. The small revenue that is made from the industrial versions of XDS (which BTW are not time-limited) goes to the Max Planck Verwertungsgesellschaft, and thus helps to fund (general) research. If the XDS source code were made freely available, even this revenue would not be available; at the time when XDS was started (coinciding with the start of the GNU project), the term "open source" with all its different license schemes (that may even lead to payments) was not even invented.

To give you an idea of what I mean by "maintainable": just a few minutes ago I sent an email that started with "...please upgrade your XDSGUI! The Rd plot in the latest version would tell you ..." and I am considering to put an expiration date on future versions of XDSGUI, because it is in everybody's interest to get the best result from a program. It is really the other way around: _you_ should have an interest in getting the best results, by using the latest version. It is unlikely that there will ever be a need to reproduce the errors from the old program. And if you are in a situation that you want to reproduce those old results: just reset the clock of your computer. This is a very small effort, and a very small price to pay.

Furthermore you seem to believe that the one model of software development that you like is evidently the only one that everybody else should use. I do not agree - although I also like Open Source in general. The truth is that several different models exist, and they all have their role. Is OSX open source, is Windows, is Word? - still everybody uses them, and people pay for it. So why  complain about software you don't pay for? Effectively you are saying "the software does not cost money, so its source code should also be free".

The bugs fixed in this release are associated with highly technical details having to do with floating overflow occurring in corner cases. If you want to more specifically know what Wolfgang Kabsch changed, ask him by email; this is nothing for this BB as nobody will understand it. If many people write to him requesting 32bit Linux or OSX 10.5 binaries, he might change his mind. But to be honest, it is very little effort to install 64bit Linux, and 32bit-only Intel-compatible processors for notebooks and PCs have not been manufactured (I guess) for 10 years or so. Apple hardware that cannot be upgraded to OSX 10.6 must be more than 6 years old. Yes I know one person still using OSX 10.4, and he may have his reasons - but then, he's also not a XDS user.

best wishes,

Kay

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:35:14 +0900, Takanori Nakane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear XDS developers,
>
>I object to the decision to stop the distribution of
>32 bit binary. I know many people who still use 32-bit Linux.
>I don't mean that the new version should be built for 32-bit.
>I know a huge burden associated with the maintenance of building and
>testing environment. Still, I believe that the last 32-bit build
>(version June 17, 2015) be available without time limit. For example,
>although CCP4 dropped support of 32-bit Mac OS, we can still
>download older versions or build 32-bit binary from source codes.
>Both options are unavailable for XDS.
>
>Honestly speaking, the way XDS is distributed is frustrating, where
>only the latest binary with time limit is available. How can we
>guarantee reproducibility of our research, if the exact version of a
>scientific program used for the research is no longer available [1]?
>Even worse, since XDS is a closed-source, black-box program, we do not
>know what actually changed in each update. For example, what does
>"simplification in the method for calculating the initial value of the
>mosaicity" [2] mean? How does it differ from the previous, published
>method? If the authors insist on keeping XDS source code confidential,
>they should at least provide detailed explanations of the algorithms
>in natural language, although it never substitutes source codes [3].
>It is understandable that some authors want to charge non-academic users
>to secure funding. But it does not justify secrecy of internals and
>unavailability of earlier versions.
>
>[1] See discussion on ccp4bb last May
>[log in to unmask]" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https:[log in to unmask]
>[2] XDS Release notes
>http://xds.mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de/html_doc/Release_Notes.html
>[3] Ince, Darrel C., Leslie Hatton, and John Graham-Cumming.
>"The case for open computer programs." Nature 482.7386 (2012): 485-488.
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html
>
>Best regards,
>
>Takanori Nakane
>
>(This is my personal opinion, and is not necessarily that of
>my employer or projects I am/was involved with.)
>
>On 2015/10/19 23:07, Kay Diederichs wrote:
>> Dear XDS users,
>>
>> a new package has been released for academic users; the download link is
>> at http://xds.mpimf-heidelberg.mpg.de/ .
>>
>> There is no longer a 32bit version for Linux, and there is only a single
>> package for OSX 10.6 and up. Those of you who still use 32bit Linux or
>> OSX 10.5 thus should consider upgrading their operating system; the
>> current (academic user) XDS package expires in less than 6 months so
>> there is still some time left!
>>
>> As always, if there are bugs/crashes/problems then pls tell Wolfgang
>> Kabsch or me about them; we can only fix bugs if we can reproduce them
>> so pls be prepared to share (confidentially) the minimal amount of data
>> with us that allows to reproduce the problem.
>>
>> best wishes,
>>
>> Kay
>>