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 means
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,
@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 projects? My
vote would
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
