On Jun 8 2013 7:03 PM, Kenneth Lerman wrote: > On 6/8/2013 4:14 PM, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 6/8/2013 2:39 PM, EBo wrote: >>> I liked Matt's suggestion to set up a clean slate and slowly >>> migrate over. The brass tax of the matter is that there are some >>> people you will never be able to find, and others who are >>> vehemently opposed to relicensing their code. You are simply going >>> to have to replace it. So while you have to do a little of that >>> anyway, this would be good time to start the LinuxCNC-3.0 design >>> and work through what worked and did not for v2. There is also the >>> issue that people are spending so much time and energy thrashing >>> over this that you could probably have replaced the worst of the >>> offenders already. Anyway, that's my 2c. I'll probably catch hell >>> for speaking up, but .... >>> >>> Oh, just to be clear, if you did something like this the first >>> thing to do would be to choose a license. I've already heard >>> (L)GPL2+ mentioned. I would suggest that being the very first >>> discussion at the meeting. >> +1 I'll stick my neck out too. :) >> >> I think this could work quite well starting with HAL and RTAPI >> (which >> IIRC didn't have quite the license issues of some of the rest of the >> code), and make a great "excuse" to make the code build more modular >> in the process. >> >> ...and I'm trying to clearly tag everything I write with GPL2+ >> license >> clauses, although I'd be happy to switch to LGPL2+ or some other >> open >> license if that helps the "play nice with other licenses" problem. >> Or >> even assign copyright to LinuxCNC Perpetual Licensing Federation of >> Concerned Parties (or who/what-ever) if it helps things move >> forward! > IANAL, but... The problem with tagging it with a particular license > and > then adding it to the source occurs if I modify the code. I'm now a > copyright owner of part of the code AND I assumed that it would have > your particular license. Now, YOU can't change the license without my > permission. > > I think that's sort of how we got where we are.
that is my understanding too. No. The project needs one license basically for everything and any contribution you make needs people to agree for it to be given under that license... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services 3. A single system of record for all IT processes http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
