I suspect that LinuxCNC code has already been stolen, we just aren't entirely aware of it. There are some closed source embedded CNC systems out there that have stated that they have some NIST code in them, but I suspect they have a lot more than just the NIST code. Plus look at the packaged CNC controllers that are starting to pop up in China. Do you think they wrote all of that code? Uh no. The truth is that unless it is entirely blatant, I doubt that we are going to do anything about it.
Long term I would be more concerned about some legal entity coming after LinuxCNC and attempting to shut it down or at least inhibit its use. Look at what happened with the EMC Corp over the EMC2 name. That was minor compared with what could happen. As LinuxCNC becomes more powerful, it will become more of a threat to some commercial software. I am doubtful there is anything we can really do about that other than to make sure that all code is licensed as GPL. So there is not much point in worrying about this. Dave Cole On 6/11/2013 6:45 AM, Paul Kelly wrote: > Been reading this as an LCNC outsider (but someone involved in similar IP > situations in other contexts). > I like this post. It really sums it up well. > > If I could add my 2c worth: > 2.B If someone steals some code in violation of whatever licensing is in > place and sells a product, then they WILL become known to the community and > there are many scenarios in which karma may be dealt out... > > 2.A Could you not just make (and document) every effort to contact the > existing authors with an "If you object to this new licensing arrangement > (which is fundamentally a holier than thou, close to public domain approach) > then contact us within 6 months." Type approach, then release a set of > sources under the new license... If anyone decides they object at a later > date then 2.B applies to them and there will be no real consequences. > > PK > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Shaver [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013 12:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Emc-developers] Radical Ideas > > 0. I really want all this copyright/licensing stuff resolved, then buried so > deep I never have to see it again. > > 1. I also want it resolved in a way that maximally protects what we have > with minimum effort on our part, especially with almost no effort on my part > :) The solution must also age well, automatically covering new and > unforeseen situations to whatever extent possible. > > 2. When I say "protects" I have two potential scenarios in mind: > > A. Someone comes along and says, "You can't use linuxcnc anymore > because it contains my IP covered by [copyright | patent | whatever]". > > B. Someone comes along and takes some of linuxcnc's source code and > uses it in their product without so much as a 'by your leave sir'. > > If 'B' occurs, I'll be well and truly miffed. I'll likely stomp around and > rant for a while, and plot the grisly death of the foul usurper. If 'A' > occurs I'll immediately lose my sad little job. 'B' is annoying, 'A' > is intolerable. The other problem with 'B' is that even if I was clearly the > sole legitimate copyright owner of the purloined code, I can't afford > justice. My rough estimate for prosecuting a copyright infringement lawsuit > to its conclusion is $20k-$50k. That's the amount of money you will pay a > lawyer in advance to move your suit forward. If you don't believe this, get > some estimates. If anything, I'm low. No money = no justice, plain and > simple. If you "win" all you'll get is a permanent injunction prohibiting > the defendant from infringing your copyright. If the defendant violates > that, you'll pay more money to have it enforced. There are probably big > statutory penalties for copyright infringement; I think it's $150k per > occurrence or something like that. It doesn't matter because you'll never > see it anyway. Those amounts are probably maximum awards and in practice > they'll be negotiated away before the two opposing counsel's cocktails are > served at the lunch meeting where they're going to negotiate the settlement > of your case. Regardless, I can guarantee that that any amount you ever do > recover will be less than your legal bills. I just realized I forgot to tell > you something! That $20k-$50k cost was to achieve a negotiated settlement, > not an actual "trial". I don't know how much it will cost if you go to > trial. It's one of those situations where if you have to ask you can't > afford it. What if you actually _can_ afford this course of action? > Congratulations, you're rich! If I were you I'd quit fooling with CNC > machines all together and spend all the time I could on my yacht rubbing > suntan lotion into the soft, smooth shoulder blades of bored > twenty-something fashion models, but that's just me. Seriously, if you're > that rich and don't know how to have fun, contact me off list; I am the > consultant you need. > > 3. So, from a practical standpoint, the way to deal with the threat > described in #2B above is to: > > A. Clearly and forcefully assert your copyright over material which > you are clearly and undeniably the rights owner. Document all details > of authorship interest(s). Threaten dire consequences to any > trespassers. > > B. When they steal from you, realize you're just SOL. This will keep > you from pursuing fruitless efforts at vengeance. Instead, look at it > as a chance to sell add-on consulting. If that doesn't work you could > try shaming them by exposing what they did. I don't think it will be > very effective because thieves are already pretty shameless, even > in some cases to the extent of being totally conscience free. If > you're really hell bent on revenge, offer your consulting services at > half the market rate or less. Thieves are also generally stupid, so > they might actually hire you. Then, over the course of time, you can > undermine their organization from within and keep them from reaching > their goals while depleting their resources. This has the double > benefit of costing you less than a legal defense (even accounting for > opportunity cost) and providing you with the greater satisfaction > resulting from being able to slide the dagger between their ribs > personally, rather than via a proxy like your lawyer. As for > myself, despite all my tough talk, I actually prefer to play the game > straight, but to each his own. > > I HAVE TO GET UP EARLY, SO I'LL CONTINUE THIS TOMORROW WITH DETAILS ON HOW I > THINK WE SHOULD HANDLE THE MORE SERIOUS THREAT DESCRIBED IN #2A ABOVE. ALSO, > I WILL PREDICT THE FUTURE. > > Thanks, > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
