On 6/10/2013 3:16 AM, Michael Haberler wrote: > David, > > I appreciate that well-researched statement, and found it quite enlightening > > Am 10.06.2013 um 01:40 schrieb David Bagby<[email protected]>: > > >> Hi All, >> >> With some trepidation, I've decided to enter into this conversation.I >> >> > ... > >> All this leads me to think that worrying about creating a LCNC >> governance structure to address license issues and/or fretting over the >> impacts of using GPLvX licensed code with any of the LCNC code that >> originated from NIST, seems (at least to me) to be a rather fruitless >> exercise. >> > Let's not mix up means and ends; I think a credible governance structure is > needed for coordination of goals and actually reaching them; I dont think > such a structure is required to address the license issue (it might be on the > social level - driving things forward in a more coherent and reproducible > style) > > >> Frankly, I'm thinking that a pragmatic approach would be to use a bit >> more of the "don't worry, be happy" philosophy wrt to licensing and >> instead steer community effort to improving the CNC Core code. >> > I wish that were enough. > > Practically everbody agrees that "more exposure will aid LinuxCNC". Great, > and now what? > > One obvious tool is to get LinuxCNC into major distribution(s), and that was > not possible so far but it is becoming an option technically as the sole > dependency on off-mainstream kernel is removed. > > That raises a new question, which was out of scope so far: 'will the credibly > communicated license status good enough to get into some of these > distributions'? > > While I personally am not afraid of any legal argument around the current > code base and license status, I think the answer to that question right now > is 'dubious in the very minimum'. > > I think that must remain a prime goal of any such effort to make sense; I > could care less about a warm cozy feeling about the license status for my own > peace of mind. > > - Michael > > >
Michael, what do you mean by "get LinuxCNC into more distributions"? Do you mean that getting away from Ubuntu will allow operation on non-PC based hardware? And that will aide in LinuxCNC's popularity? The number of Linux distributions is huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions I tend to choose distributions based upon what is available. I bought a RPI and a distribution of Raspibian was available for download ... so that is what I used, etc It worked well enough for me to do some exploring. Likewise when I found out about EMC2 years ago I simply started using Ubuntu. Most end users are interested in the results rather than the methods of getting there. If the BeagleBone turns out to be a success as it appears it will, it will propel LinuxCNC into new territory and most end users will not care about the distribution if it works properly. Dave Cole ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
