MH wrote me recently to ask if I had fixed the licensing problem yet... ಠ_ಠ
I replied: ********************************************************************** I don't think there's anything I can _do_ about licensing. Here's what I think: 1. This needs to be solved in Wichita where the people most interested in LinuxCNC can make a collective decision. Nothing I can say or do, other than analysis (which I've already done and posted, at least my take on things) could have any legitimacy. This is the "traditional" way this group/organization/whatever-this-is has done things. The trick this time will be to get everyone to agree to an organizational plan of some sort that can be managed. 2. My personal opinion is that the thing we call Linuxcnc today, that people use to run their machines right now, can't be re-licensed as a practical matter. I haven't been able to get any real (as in written by an actual lawyer) legal opinions on any of the things I mentioned in my writings on the subject. Even if the change could be made under some defensible legal principle, the poisonous outrage of even a few objectors could kill the project. I really don't want that :) 3. What I think will work is some version of this: A. Start a new project on git by adding it here: http://git.linuxcnc.org/gitweb B. Don't allow any additions to this repository except from persons who have signed a (yet to be invented) Contributor License Agreement. NOTE: I probably should research this before the meeting. C. Assuming a system design exists (that we will hopefully hash out at the meeting) for the next generation system, write the code and put it in the new repository. I know this is ridiculously simplistic, but the details will have to be discussed amongst all the stakeholders. D. _ANYTHING_ that is re-used from the old system will have to have it's provenance researched and documented _BEFORE_ it is added to the new system. We might as well treat the old code as you would some code you find on the web somewhere; As something you might possibly use if you can work out the licensing details. It's harsh, but it will work. ********************************************************************** I'd like to revise the first sentence above to: "I don't think there's anything I can _do_ ALONE about licensing." Here are my thoughts on this, in no particular order, upon which I am seeking your thoughtful and constructive feedback: I. I think I'll go with Roman numerals for this list, having used Arabic style above ;) II. If you're interested in this subject (linuxcnc copyright and licensing that is), and you have read any of my comments thereon, you may be left with the feeling that I am slightly detached from the issue even though I have written rather a lot about it. The reason for this is that I already have a legal relationship with this project. It's this: http://www.mattshaver.com/CRADA.pdf Before you click on that link, let me save you some time. Only sections 5, 9, and 10.9 of that document are currently operable, the rest were extinguished upon termination of the agreement, which happened in 1999. Now, go read sections 5.3 and 9.2.2, then come back. Don't worry, they're short. [Jeopardy theme music goes here] Good. I'll address these in reverse order: i. With respect to section 9.2.2, I hereby now inform you that I have never in the past, am not now, and will never in the future, authorize anyone to use, or allow to act on my behalf in the use of, in any way, including but not limited to incorporation into a product, any of the research or technical developments referred to by this section. I may have been waving at you from the other side, but you crossed this bridge alone. (*) ii. Section 5.3 Subject Data - This is the heart of the matter. If you didn't read section 1.3 before, where the term "Subject Data" is defined, do that now. [more Jeopardy theme music...] With respect to my own contributions to materials covered under this section, they are in the public domain and subject to the conditions of use specified therein. If I were looking to weasel out of this (I'm not), I could try to say that the section 1.3 language suggests that after the agreement expires (1999), _future work_ might not be necessarily covered by the section 5.3 terms. But, once again speaking only for myself, I'm happy to continue to abide by section 5.3. In fact, I like the deal I have, and nothing anyone can say will ever convince me to abandon it. NIST was extraordinarily kind to me, and I wouldn't want to ruin that by going back on my word. iii. If you've ever wondered: WTF were they thinking? Appendix A is basically the answer. III. Now that you know where I stand on all this, here's the deal: I will help change the copyright/license situation of linuxcnc from what it is now to whatever you guys want (assuming it's not a proprietary license) IFF we can come up with a workable plan to do so before I drive home from Stuart's place. If we can't solve this soon, I'm going to stop thinking about it all together; It's too much of a bummer. IV. In preparation for discussion about this at the meeting, I'd like to know: i. Do you want a change in the copyright/license situation of linuxcnc? If I were you I would, but I'm not and my own situation is unique, so I have to ask this. If you feel that the current, needlessly complex, ill defined, incomprehensible, morale sucking, legally mysterious, morally ambiguous situation is superior to anything else, please explain this in detail so that we can give your opinion the consideration it deserves. ii. If you do want change, is the CLA method I propose above acceptable to you? If not, please offer an alternative solution. If you are unsure and feel we should explore other possible solutions, please help to identify other courses of action that you feel would precipitate the change you want. I'd like to see some discussion of this in the pre-Wichita time period. To learn about CLAs, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement iii. Once you read the obligatory wikipedia link, this ( http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/07/07/harmony-harmful.html ) is a much better link to follow if you're trying to understand the CLA and alternatives. I need to research this issue myself to be able to write anything on the subject worth your time to read, but as of now, my preferences would be for a "gentle but formal" CLA of the inbound=outbound variety and no copyright assignment. The license should be "LGPLv2.1 or later" wherever possible, and "GPLv2 or later" otherwise. Note that this will mean a rewrite of the NIST code, but so will almost any plausible solution to our copyright/licensing problem, except perhaps "extreme modularization". Thanks, Matt (*) - Yes, I thought about redacting section 9.2.2 before I posted this, but I'm just not wired that way. Also, all the address, phone and e-mail info is out of date. Just ask if you need the new info. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services 3. A single system of record for all IT processes http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
