On 8/9/2012 3:10 AM, Michael Haberler wrote:
> Chris,
> Am 09.08.2012 um 06:00 schrieb Chris Morley:
> ..
>> While a lot of the details are over my head the ideas your talking about are
>> important.
>> We are not so good at long time planning in linuxcnc but it has seemed to
>> work up to this point never-the-less.
>>
>> I see a few things coming in the nearish future that may put us in a
>> position of considering developing
>> a new version.
>> licensing is a bit of a mess right now - which limits who will use/develop
>> use if there is legal questions of use/distribution.
>> <...>
>> Enjoying the discussion...
>> Chris M
> linking a rewrite of LinuxCNC ("LinuxCNC3") and a licensing cleanup is an
> interesting idea, and I think worth exploring in more detail.
>
> I dont have a suggestion for a future license yet, but assume we had one
> (lets call it v3license) and it would enable bringing in other key components
> more easily.
>
> I need to think this through, but my first take on a greenfield approach to
> V3 would be:
>
> 1. carrying forward HAL and RTAPI, all the HAL components, motion, comp, the
> sim/rt environment to v3license would be key.
> <...>
>
> whale of a plan.. this will years of coexistence of v2 and v3. But I agree it
> is time to consider that cut.
>
> - Michael
>
I don't know what has happened to him in recent times but a fellow named
Paul Corner (the father of the BDI series of EMC) was a major player
early in the history of EMC being pushed out of NIST. In addition to
making many technical contributions, he constantly complained about the
licensing mess and the conundrum it would present to many users. Tension
grew between him and other developers about many things and useful
discussions gradually ceased. Clearly, the licensing problem didn't go
away however.
One has to be cautious about license "cleanup". I'm not a lawyer nor do
I play one on TV but as I understand it, a license can be changed only
by the granter of the license. I haven't looked explicitly at the
current codebase but In some parts of the original EMC both the granter
and the license were explicitly stated. In other parts, not so much. As
Paul would (did) say, one can't simply slap a license on a piece of code
that is missing a license statement.
John Kasunich's communication came in as I was writing this. It is
exactly the kind of communication we want/need from all the authors.
Regards,
Kent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
