On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Michael Haberler <[email protected]>wrote:
> Would this then be the 'lazy lawyer' requirement? > > - "licenses published with LinuxCNC must be compatible with all dependent > packages 'prima facie', that is without studying further license > arrangements not specifically spelled out in the published licenses per se" > > it would translate into something like this statement: > > "The license(s) applicable to the LinuxCNC code is/are here: <link(s)>" > "The dependent package licenses are here: <links>" > "According to compatibility matrix entries <links>, these are compatible." > > I have to say that this make sense to me. The goals of the FSF and just about everyone else don't exactly line up. If someone makes money off of a bit of code that I wrote I'm not going to complain unless they try to control my distribution of it. I suspect that most lines of code in linuxcnc were written people that dont' care if it's hidden in a proprietary box somewhere as long as the makers of that proprietary box don't cause us problems. Sometimes I think that free software is too important to be screwed up by Richard Stallman. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
