On Mar 10 2013 6:15 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:01:24 -0600
> EBo <[email protected]> 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 due to now necessarly needing to
>> convey the conditions of GPLv2.  I will say though that it does not
>> make sense that a GPLv2 must only use GPLv2 libraries and cannot 
>> link
>> to anything else.
>
> We don't need to do anything :) We have the explicit, written
> permission of the copyright owners to use 0MQ in our GPLv2 project as
> long as we share with them any changes we make, if any, to the actual
> 0MQ source code. Specifically, they say:
>
> "To be clear: you can use libzmq (and any other 0MQ project with the
> same license) in a GPLv2 project, both as a dynamic library, and in a
> static link. If you make patches, you need to publish them, as usual.
> There's no reason there would be any restrictions for GPLv2 projects
> since the license is designed to work with all application licenses
> including commercial closed source."
>
> The copyright owners have granted us permission to link to their
> libraries. This permission supersedes any restriction that may appear
> in the LGPLv3 text. Since only copyright owners can enforce 
> copyrights,
> and we have their permission to use their work, who will object? Who
> will sue us? The license itself, nor the license authors (FSF), have 
> a
> say in this matter.
>
> A dog wags its tail, not the other way around :) A copyright owner 
> can
> license his work in any way he chooses. He might permit you unlimited
> use, he may forbid me any use, and everyone else may receive a 
> license
> permitting limited use. As another example, I live in 15 acres of
> woods. I have posted NO TRESPASSING/NO HUNTING signs. I don't want 
> just
> any yokel and his brother out there shooting the place up! However, 
> my
> buddies Kevin and Brian come over in the fall and hunt deer because
> there are a lot of deer here and I have given them permission to 
> hunt.
> I _don't_ have to take down all the signs so they can go hunting :) 
> If
> a game warden catches them, he'll bring them up to the house to be 
> sure
> I actually gave them permission to hunt. If I say they have 
> permission,
> he _won't_ arrest them for trespassing or hunting just because of the
> signs :)
>
> In short, licenses can't restrict the rights of copyright owners to 
> do
> as they please with their work. The tail can't wag the dog!
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> P.S. We are bound by the warranty, anti-tivoization, patent, and 
> other
> terms of the (L)GPLv3 if we use 0MQ. The exception granted by the 0MQ
> folks to their users only relieves us from worries about linking. If
> someone using a 0MQ based version of linuxcnc tried to engage in
> "tivoization" the 0MQ folks could sue to prevent 0MQ being used this
> way. For more information on the issue of "tivoization", see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

If 0MQ has given you permission to use it in this context, then we do 
not have them to worry about.  From reading the "tivoization" document 
you pointed to, I do not see the problem.  If they give me a full copy 
of all the source code, then I can build a similar system on a different 
platform.  The specific hardware lockout on their hardware (which I can 
see as potentially a decent security measure), does not keep me hardware 
locked -- which I see as a bigger problem.  All that being said I am not 
interested in starting a flame war over BETTER/WORSE licensing 
arguments.  The biggest concern I had was that 0MQ would take issue.

   EBo --

ps: this is the first time that I have heard anyone say that they were 
contacted and that they have given LCNC an extended license specifically 
granting us GPLv2 use rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester  
Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the  
endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to 
tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers

Reply via email to