Andy - true (and a challenge to be followed for sure) however I would interpret (not a legal expert) that since LCNC doesn't sell or distribute "machines" (including by their definition), LCNC would not be restricted. A "software process" isn't defined as a singular script, executable or package, thus a "manufacturer of a subtractive machine that implements LCNC" (example) could (and would be required to) add more software to make it compliant at their own expense at the "complete machine level".
This interpretation is not substantially different from the impossible requirement of the OS (as "software") needing to natively provide such detection compliance, for if it did, then both Mach3/4 AND MS Windows would also be restricted from being sold in WA. I'm sure Redmond would have something to say about that in their own backyard!
If LCNC was including some qualified code to check for offending files or made the claim that it provided such a capability, then that would get legally-dicey indeed.
(again not a legal expert, simply a non-binding opinion) Ted. On January 22, 2026 8:20:43 AM andy pugh <[email protected]> wrote:
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2321.pdf?q=20260122051205 Page 2, line 17. If this passes then we would probably have no alternative but to not allow the use of LinuxCNC in Washington State. I see no way at all for LinuxCNC to comply. But I also see no way at all to prevent the use of LinuxCNC in Wa. -- atp "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and lunatics." — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1912 _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
_______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
