<rant> Hey guys, before we spend a lot of time chasing the thoughts of someone working against our project we need to think seriously about what the GPL, LGPL, and GPLD is supposed to do for us and what these licenses really require of us.
We asserted GPL for most all of the original NIST software when we moved it into the EMC2 CVS module. This was done at the suggestion of the NIST employees who had worked on the project and their legal counsel. As additions to the code come along, most of the current developers assign the GPL or LGPL to the files as they add them to the project. That's all good because it gives us all the right to play. Because we use the GPL for many of the files does not mean that all of the project files must be similarly licensed. This whole steaming pile of FUD or BS or whatever is just intended to distract the few who do not understand the real purpose of GPL which is to yield access to the essential code that is linked together to form a process. And yes there are files in the repository that are NOT GPL. I can write any damn configuration I want and not have to share it with anyone. I can put it in the repository and still keep a copyright rayh on it and demand that others not change it. I could write a new Mini graphical interface and copyright and/or patent it for some obscure function. If the guys permitted, it could become a part of the repository at linuxcnc.org. Hell, the way we have it now, someone can write their own kinematics file and not have to share it. It would be a trick to extract the motion.h stuff so that it stands alone but it can be done. An XML file that builds a pyvcp interface is the same sort of thing. Such files would not be infected by the GPL code that it talks with. The person that did this and built an "octapod" would be will within her rights to not share that kinematics or pyvcp config files with anyone and still sell the machine for profit. Such a company would still have to make access for it's customers to the GPL code in there. These files don't need to be GPL because they are not linked to any code that is. So let's get on the with the project and leave the nay-sayers off on their own tangents or forks or wherever they feel they need to be. And last but by no means least is the truth that this whole line of thought is backwards. An author asserts copyright. It is up to someone else to attempt to deny it. In the case of the GPL and relatives it is up to the author of the code to prove that someone else is preventing access to that code or it's derivatives. I don't see how cvs.linuxcnc.org or users of EMC2 can be accused of preventing access. M2CW. </rant> Rayh On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 16:56 +0200, Alex Joni wrote: > Hi fenn, > > > Recently a talented programmer who had written his own real-time > > linux > > based cnc control showed up on the irc channel. When I asked him why > > he > > chose to write his own software instead of contributing to our > > project, he > > replied that, among other things, he was unsure if EMC was fully GPL > > compliant. This bugs me. > > This bugs me too. (otoh it's nice that there are OSS alternatives to > emc2). > EMC is not GPL compliant at all. EMC is Public Domain, with additions > by quite a few developers who never said what license they release > their changes under. > Note: EMC refers to the Version 1 of the Enhanced Machine Controller, > developed by NIST and released as PD code. > It is not to be mixed up with emc2 which, although adapted from the > EMC code, is intended to be GPL/LGPL. > And any code commited to it is GPL/LGPL (at least I have never > seen/heard otherwise). > > > If anyone knows of any files in the current codebase that aren't GPL > > or > > LGPL licensed, would they please say what they are, so we can do > > something > > about it? > > I know of 2 events regarding to licensing problems brought up: > > I. an email by Paul Corner (18.05.2006) stating the following issues: > 1. "Under the src/hal/drivers directory are a number of files > associated with the > m5i20 driver (including plx9030.h) - Whilst Peter Wallace of Mesa > Electronics > has granted permission to release these files under a GPL, he has not > to my > knowledge, publically transfered copyrights to Peter Vavaroutsos." > I contacted PeteV after that, and he confirmed that licensing is > conform to the work done (his name on the files he wrote). > > 2. "emc/kinematics/genhexkins.* are by Brian Register". > I tried to contact Brian Register (so did Paul) but we both > failed. Ray Henry stated that Brian was an intern at NIST during the > time he wrote the genhexkins, which makes the work beeing PD. > > 3. "Finally, emc2/debian/* Take a look at the commit of revision > 1.1 for several of the files in this directory -" > It seems Paul debianized emc2 before I started to do so, and I > failed to acknoledge his work. This has been resolved now. > > II. an email from Brett Smith - Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free > Software Foundation notifying of some licensing problems: > "It appears that some of the comments in your source files refer > to the "version 2.1 of the GNU General Public License." > this was indeed correct, and due to a bad copy/paste. The issue > has been resolved. > > > Also, I'd like to ask the board to come up with a time period > > for comments, after which we can safely claim that the EMC project > > has > > finally "made the transition to GPL" that we've all been waiting > > for. If > > anyone is certain that EMC is completely free of any code with a > > questionable license, please stand up and say so, and we can get > > this over > > with much quicker. > > We can safely claim that now (if we refer to emc2, not the original > EMC). > I see no reasons to have any doubts about licensing problems in emc2. > > > Once we've agreed that there are no lurking hidden problems, it > > would be > > nice to inform the user base what the fuss was all about in the > > first > > place. I for one don't know. If EMC is free and unencumbered it is > > something to be proud of; an announcement to this effect can do no > > harm > > and will correct some misconceptions that might be preventing people > > from > > using or contributing to the project. > > Honestly, I have no clue what the fuss is all about. > It seems there are some individuals once in a while that find it > interesting to spread FUD, > and try to discredit OSS projects. I have no idea how this benefits > them, or what personal urge is driving them. > > > Thanks, > > -fenn > > Best regards, > Alex Joni > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
