ok, to sum this up:
the code in question will be library-type code _only_, and not a standalone
application ever
I will therefore ask the author to relicense his code as "LGPLv2.1 or later".
- Michael
Am 11.03.2013 um 01:55 schrieb Matt Shaver:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:17:32 +0100
> Michael
On 03/10/2013 08:31 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.
>
> Halscope is a stand-alone application. How does LGPL make sense
> for it?
By the way, 'LGPL' no longer mean
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 Protectio
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
Bo [mailto:e...@sandien.com]
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:36 PM
> >> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] License question - code piece for HAL
> >>
> >> A bigger question is will we ever realistically break out
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 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 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
gular GPL.
>
> Steve Stallings
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: EBo [mailto:e...@sandien.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:36 PM
>> To: emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] License question - code piece for HAL
>&
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:17:32 +0100
Michael Haberler 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 expressed willing
c-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] License question - code piece for HAL
>
> 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 projec
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, Mi
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)
13 matches
Mail list logo
