On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 10:13:00 -0400
Kenneth Lerman wrote:
> 3 -- So you believe that LinuxCNC should be actively promoted or that
> it should be left alone to exist in peace?
I don't think it needs TV commercials or anything like that :) I think
if a company sold machine tools that use linuxcnc,
Am 10.06.2013 um 01:11 schrieb Jon Elson :
> Michael Haberler wrote:
>> here's an example boat anchor:
>>
>> src$ sloccount libnml/ emc/nml_intf/
>> ...
>> Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 31,374
>>
> Just taking a quick look at ver 2.5 :
> src/libnml/nml
>
> All bu
Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:01:45 -0500
> Jon Elson wrote:
>
>
>> David Bagby wrote:
>>
>>> These same source files also contain comments that claim the
>>> contents of the file are licensed under a GPL license. Counsel
>>> tells me those comments are at best wishful thinki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/9/2013 9:13 AM, Kenneth Lerman wrote:
> 1 -- How long have you been involved in LinuxCNC?
About a year.
> 2 -- Do you consider yourself to be heavily involved or only
> modestly involved? What is the nature of your involvement? As a
> developer?
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:01:45 -0500
Jon Elson wrote:
> David Bagby wrote:
> >
> > These same source files also contain comments that claim the
> > contents of the file are licensed under a GPL license. Counsel
> > tells me those comments are at best wishful thinking. For better or
> > worse, no ma
I agree that we need to look at this from a practical perspective. Life
is short and I suspect that we would all rather be doing something else
than discussing license issues.
I think a couple of questions need to be answered;
1. What happens if we do nothing regarding licensing and
request/
David brings up some important points that have not really been
articulated before as far as I recall. Basically the bottom line is
that the NIST code is in the public domain and can not be changed to be
(L)GPL. That being said, according to the licensing compatibility doc
http://www.gnu.org/
David Bagby wrote:
>
> These same source files also contain comments that claim the contents of
> the file are licensed under a GPL license. Counsel tells me those
> comments are at best wishful thinking. For better or worse, no matter
> what anyone may want or wish, asserting a GPL license stat
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 18:28:28 +
Chris Morley wrote:
> And I don't think having a relatively closed door discussion about
> these broad questions should be done in Wichita. Whichta would be
> great for figuring out the details of HOW we will do what we have
> decided.
I agree with you in princ
Hi All,
With some trepidation, I've decided to enter into this conversation.I
think that people wanting to make decision about a topic would like to
be well informed on the topic -- even when they involve potentially
emotional/religious topics (like licensing).
I've decided to offer for your c
Michael Haberler wrote:
> here's an example boat anchor:
>
> src$ sloccount libnml/ emc/nml_intf/
> ...
> Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 31,374
>
Just taking a quick look at ver 2.5 :
src/libnml/nml
All but one of the *.cc and *.hh files have :
License: LGPL Versi
Am 09.06.2013 um 23:13 schrieb Ian McMahon :
> I'm very new to the game, and I probably don't understand all the details and
> politics around this discussion, but:
>
> I'm assuming the concern is over the potential over-restriction of GPL?
Yes, but the restrictions really have two dimensions
Ian McMahon wrote:
> I'm very new to the game, and I probably don't understand all the details and
> politics around this discussion, but:
>
> I'm assuming the concern is over the potential over-restriction of GPL?
> Creative Commons seems to be the best route in terms of disentangling
> licens
Am 09.06.2013 um 16:13 schrieb Kenneth Lerman :
> Since most of us will not be in Wichita, or will only be there part of
> the time, I think it important that we try to characterize the
> stakeholders and their views prior to the meeting. For that reason, I'd
> like to suggest that people who
I'm very new to the game, and I probably don't understand all the details and
politics around this discussion, but:
I'm assuming the concern is over the potential over-restriction of GPL?
Creative Commons seems to be the best route in terms of disentangling licensing
complexity, and I feel lik
Chris Morley wrote:
> And I don't think having a relatively closed door discussion about these
> broad questions
> should be done in Wichita. Whichta would be great for figuring out the
> details of HOW we
> will do what we have decided.
>
Well, we only have ONE WEEK before everybody packs up
On Sunday 09 June 2013 16:42:12 Chris Morley did opine:
> > If we keep dragging feet, at some point we will have a crossover of
> > returns: it will be easier to throw away the GPL2 code and baggage
> > like NML and Tcl, and start with the relicensable core code and
> > postwar supporting componen
> If we keep dragging feet, at some point we will have a crossover of returns:
> it will be easier to throw away the GPL2 code and baggage like NML and Tcl,
> and start with the relicensable core code and postwar supporting components.
>
>
> - Michael
>
Honestly I am tired of this issue pop
> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth Lerman [mailto:kenneth.ler...@se-ltd.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 10:13 AM
> To: EMC developers; Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
> Subject: [Emc-developers] Licensing Questionaire
>
> 1 -- How long have you been involved in LinuxCNC?
>
Since
Kent,
You are, of course, correct. My thought was to solicit thoughts under
one heading. I'd hate to ignore opinions from strong contributors just
because they couldn't make it to Wichita.
In retrospect, I probably should have started a discussion about what
should be included in a questionair
Kenneth Lerman wrote:
> 1 -- How long have you been involved in LinuxCNC?
>
1997
> 2 -- Do you consider yourself to be heavily involved or only modestly
> involved? What is the nature of your involvement? As a developer? As a
> user?
>
>
Moderately, I guess. I manufacture motion control in
On 6/9/2013 10:13 AM, Kenneth Lerman wrote:
> 4 -- Do you come to it as a free and excellent body of code available
> for your own use or do you see it as part of what provides their livelihood?
>
> 5 -- Should it be protected by strong licensing from those who might
> attempt to use it without con
I've snipped stuff from the top and bottom of Steve's post. My comments
are below.
On 6/8/2013 8:12 PM, Steve Stallings wrote:
>
> We should be so lucky.
>
> The LinuxCNC (nee EMC) community is a very diverse bunch.
>
> Some folks have been involved for only a few months, others
> have been aroun
let me add the list of parts which cannot be used without either massaging the
author, or not at all:
- GP Orcullo's picnc driver: licensed as GPL3. Author agreed to relicense.
Asked him yesterday. Reason for integration: I want this in, and I want to stop
yet another case in the making where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/8/2013 8:57 PM, EBo wrote:
> On Jun 8 2013 7:03 PM, Kenneth Lerman wrote:
>> On 6/8/2013 4:14 PM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
>>>
>>> ...and I'm trying to clearly tag everything I write with GPL2+
>>> license clauses, although I'd be happy to sw
25 matches
Mail list logo
