On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:25:39 -0600
John Morris j...@zultron.com wrote:
Pieter's not right about this. LCNC is GPLv2 ONLY, and libzmq is
LPGLv3. This compatibility matrix shows the combo is invalid:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
The trouble is that the
On Mar 10 2013 7:40 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:25:39 -0600
John Morris j...@zultron.com wrote:
Pieter's not right about this. LCNC is GPLv2 ONLY, and libzmq is
LPGLv3. This compatibility matrix shows the combo is invalid:
I have identified a small piece of code which could take on an important
function in HAL/RTAPI. If it were integrated, it would become part of the HAL
API.
That code is currently GPL2only.
The author has expressed willingness to relicense after I told him we might
eventually move to (likely)
A bigger question is will we ever realistically break out HAL as a
standalone linkable library? Is it OK with the people working
on/playing with HAL that it be used for other projects? My vote would
be for the HAL related stuff be LGPL, but that is my 2c/
EBo --
On Mar 10 2013 3:17 PM,
The core part of HAL was originally released as LGPL by
John Kasunich. Latter additions such as HAL Scope were,
I think, made regular GPL.
Steve Stallings
-Original Message-
From: EBo [mailto:e...@sandien.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:36 PM
To:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:01:24 -0600
EBo e...@sandien.com wrote:
Looks like we need to email EFF or GNU for a determination. Matt
what you say is that 0MQ allows linking to anything, but GPLv2
requires that anything linked must then convey GPLv2, then GPL is the
problem and LCNC cannot use 0MQ
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:17:32 +0100
Michael Haberler mai...@mah.priv.at wrote:
I have identified a small piece of code which could take on an
important function in HAL/RTAPI. If it were integrated, it would
become part of the HAL API.
That code is currently GPL2only.
The author has
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 07:40 PM, Steve Stallings wrote:
The core part of HAL was originally released as LGPL by
John Kasunich. Latter additions such as HAL Scope were,
I think, made regular GPL.
Steve Stallings
hal_lib.c and hal.c are LGPL, because the intent was to allow
people to
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 09:25 PM, EBo wrote:
Frankly, I think halscope should either be changed back to to LGPL or
simply pulled.
my 2c
EBo --
Huh?
Halscope is a stand-alone application. How does LGPL make sense
for it?
--
John Kasunich
jmkasun...@fastmail.fm
On 03/10/2013 07:25 PM, EBo wrote:
Frankly, I think halscope should either be changed back to to LGPL or
simply pulled.
By pulled, do you mean removed from LinuxCNC? If so: do not remove
halscope! It's about the most useful and awesome tool we have!
--
Sebastian Kuzminsky
On Mar 10 2013 7:31 PM, John Kasunich wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 09:25 PM, EBo wrote:
Frankly, I think halscope should either be changed back to to LGPL
or
simply pulled.
my 2c
EBo --
Huh?
Halscope is a stand-alone application. How does LGPL make sense
for it?
For starters,
EBo wrote:
Frankly, I think halscope should either be changed back to to LGPL or
simply pulled.
Are you saying it should be removed from LinuxCNC? How will people
tune servos?
Jon
--
Symantec Endpoint Protection
12 matches
Mail list logo
