Am 09.08.2012 um 16:41 schrieb Kenneth Lerman: > On 8/9/2012 9:47 AM, EBo wrote: >> ... > > I believe that if we can, we should use some pre-existing license, > rather that writing our own. Among my requirements: > > 1 -- It should prevent people from hi-jacking our code and creating a > closed source product from it. > 2 -- It should facilitate the development of open source products. > 3 -- It should facilitate the work of system integrators. > 4 -- It should permit the development of closed source modules that work > with it. (I'm not sure we would all agree with this.) For example, > suppose I develop a really clever way of generating optimal paths for > clearing a pocket. I'd like to be able to sell this as an add on to > linuxCNC3 without distributing the source.
I agree to this list. My key issue is: the current LinuxCNC license situation, together with the incompatibilites of GPL-type licenses, create a situation where LinuxCNC is cut off from reusing other work, implicitly fostering its own deprecation. In particular, WRT the more interesting pieces of other work - here's my experience: I've stepped into the GPL-only vs GPLv3 incompatibility dog patty now three times in a row: 1. the libmodbus issue (used now in LinuxCNC) 2. the license on the OpenSCAM G-code interpreter (a potential candidate code base for a pluggable interpreter) 3. the zeromq license I got (1) and (2) "resolved" - that is, by whining and prodding that the authors re-license their code in a way compatible with LinuxCNC. There is no way to whine and prod the zeromq folks into such a "solution" - too firm opinions, contributor base too large, consensus probability epsilon. Note that 1) and 2) are in essence on-man-shows, whereas 3) is clearly not. I'm not judging quality here, but I have a strong preference for a component which has a critical mass of contributors and a reasonable life cycle expectancy, in particular if I consider it for a core component, not just a random driver on the edge of the LinuxCNC universe. At this point, I concluded that there's something fundamentally wrong, and "it's not them" - the whining approach doesnt scale. I am not saying "the universe will stop spinning if we cant get package X in". However, in the context of a - potentially massive - rewrite I think we must stop shooting ourselves in the foot by keeping ourselves locked into a legacy situation. -- I have no dog in a "License X would be best" race yet - there are no "solutions", only tradeoffs. For instance, with GPLv3 the improved patent protection is an upside, but the anti-tivoization djihad is commy nonsense, and a potential issue for LinuxCNC. I think as a first step sizing the problem helps. What I will take on is to study a bit what the impact is. I'll think it through and make a proposal. -m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
