On 1/22/26 2:17 PM, andy pugh wrote:
If this passes then we would probably have no alternative but to not allow the use of LinuxCNC in Washington State.
Besides the futility in such legislation, one can argue that LCNC is not responsible for this. It is an "as is" project and no guarantees are given. See the license file :-)
That said, you can argue that the person/company that puts LCNC together with an actual machine is the one responsible for compliance. The standalone software has no capability of producing firearms anyway (unless shooting virtual bullets becomes a criminal act).
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.
Nor should LinuxCNC try to comply. Actually, it is an exercise in futility to comply because the FOSS nature of the project assures that any changes can be stripped by any and all who gets the software.
You can also not prevent anyone from any region to get or use the software because that would be in violation of the GPL license (the no discrimination clause).
Therefore, it is up to the _user_ to comply. The project's README already has a very clear disclaimer about safety. Maybe you should rephrase the disclaimer that you must ensure to comply with _all_ local laws and regulations before you use the software. That would then covers both safety and any other relevant laws and regulations.
-- Greetings Bertho (disclaimers are disclaimed) _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
