On Mar 13 2013 11:55 PM, John Morris wrote:
> On 03/13/2013 11:04 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:45:03 -0500
>> ...
>>
>> I hope this helps, being included in the actual distributed source
>> code.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>
> Yep, that helps. I filed a bug against the Fedora 'zero
On 03/13/2013 11:04 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:45:03 -0500
> John Morris wrote:
>
>> The 'zeromq' package for Fedora states the license is LGPLv3, without
>> adding 'with exceptions' as other packages do.
>
> Chris Radek points out in another thread that if you download th
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:45:03 -0500
John Morris wrote:
> The 'zeromq' package for Fedora states the license is LGPLv3, without
> adding 'with exceptions' as other packages do.
Chris Radek points out in another thread that if you download the 0MQ
source at:
http://download.zeromq.org/zeromq-3.2.2
Hi Matt,
On 03/10/2013 08:40 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:25:39 -0600
> John Morris wrote:
>
>>> Pieter's not right about this. LCNC is GPLv2 ONLY, and libzmq is
>>> LPGLv3. This compatibility matrix shows the combo is invalid:
>>>
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 17:04:49 Chris Radek did opine:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:21:14PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > However, the email from the ZMQ folks is to me, very poor ground to
> > stand on
>
> Gene, their site where the source is distributed has this:
>
> http://www.zeromq.org/a
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:21:14PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> However, the email from the ZMQ folks is to me, very poor ground to stand
> on
Gene, their site where the source is distributed has this:
http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing
If that is not enough, download the source from ther
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 13:06:37 Matt Shaver did opine:
> > >> P.S. We are bound by the warranty, anti-tivoization, patent, and
> > >> other terms of the (L)GPLv3 if we use 0MQ.
>
> Wait! Stop right here! I wrote the above quoted text, as an
> afterthought to a post I made earlier in this thread
> >> P.S. We are bound by the warranty, anti-tivoization, patent, and
> >> other terms of the (L)GPLv3 if we use 0MQ.
Wait! Stop right here! I wrote the above quoted text, as an
afterthought to a post I made earlier in this thread. Now that I
consider it again, this may not be the case. Since the
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Michael Haberler 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
Am 11.03.2013 um 16:54 schrieb John Morris:
> I'm worried about the published license. As it stands, we won't
> be able to get this code into the big distributions.
>
> The distros' lawyers look at the published license, as included in or
> pointed to by the software. They won't consider a se
On 03/10/2013 07:15 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:01:24 -0600
> EBo wrote:
>
>> Looks like we need to email EFF or GNU for a determination. Matt
>> what you say is that 0MQ allows linking to anything, but GPLv2
>> requires that anything linked must then convey GPLv2, then GPL
On Mar 10 2013 6:15 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:01:24 -0600
> EBo wrote:
>
>> Looks like we need to email EFF or GNU for a determination. Matt
>> what you say is that 0MQ allows linking to anything, but GPLv2
>> requires that anything linked must then convey GPLv2, then GPL is
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:01:24 -0600
EBo wrote:
> Looks like we need to email EFF or GNU for a determination. Matt
> what you say is that 0MQ allows linking to anything, but GPLv2
> requires that anything linked must then convey GPLv2, then GPL is the
> problem and LCNC cannot use 0MQ due to now n
On Mar 10 2013 7:40 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:25:39 -0600
> John Morris wrote:
>
>> > Pieter's not right about this. LCNC is GPLv2 ONLY, and libzmq is
>> > LPGLv3. This compatibility matrix shows the combo is invalid:
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCo
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:25:39 -0600
John Morris wrote:
> > Pieter's not right about this. LCNC is GPLv2 ONLY, and libzmq is
> > LPGLv3. This compatibility matrix shows the combo is invalid:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
> >
> > The trouble is that the GPLv2
On Mar 9 2013 9:26 PM, John Morris wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 06:22 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Matt Shaver
>> wrote:
>> To be clear: you can use libzmq (and any other 0MQ project with the
>> same license) in a GPLv2 project, both as a dynamic library, and in
>> a
>> st
On 03/09/2013 10:26 PM, John Morris wrote:
> On 03/09/2013 06:22 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
>> To be clear: you can use libzmq (and any other 0MQ project with the
>> same license) in a GPLv2 project, both as a dynamic library, and in a
>> static li
On 03/09/2013 06:22 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> To be clear: you can use libzmq (and any other 0MQ project with the
> same license) in a GPLv2 project, both as a dynamic library, and in a
> static link. If you make patches, you need to publish them
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 08:06:28 +0100
Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> I vaguely remember the question, it was from Michael Haberler on IRC,
> but I seem to remember there was more to it than just calling the
> library, and I don't have the IRC logs to check.
>
> To be clear: you can use libzmq (and any oth
Matt,
Am 09.03.2013 um 13:22 schrieb Matt Shaver:
> The Official Response:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
>
>> "I have asked the ZeroMQ steward, Pieter Hintjens, wrt to
>> compatibility of a GPL2only project
The Official Response:
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> "I have asked the ZeroMQ steward, Pieter Hintjens, wrt to
> compatibility of a GPL2only project and ZMQ, and his answer was a
> straight 'no'. Maybe I didnt as
Some of the programmers of the linuxcnc project
(http://www.linuxcnc.org) are interested in replacing our current
messaging system, CMS/NML
(http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/rcslib/) with zeromq.
The programmers are very enthused about this, but questions have arisen
regarding the license comp
22 matches
Mail list logo
