Menu
▾
▴
emc-developers
|
From: andy p. <bod...@gm...> - 2015-11-05 10:31:06
|
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/LinuxCNC-EMC2-ethernet-4-Axis-max-3MHz-pulse-motion-control-card-20-input-IO-8-output/32468176459.html -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto |
|
From: TJoseph P. <tj...@gm...> - 2015-11-05 14:43:59
|
thx andy and this too someone offers both a computer and the cards for a realtime system http://www.aliexpress.com/item/CNC-PC-pre-install-LinuxCNC-with-Intel-ATOM-Dual-Core-D525-1-8GHz-for-MotCAT/32510918775.html?spm=2114.01020208.3.42.4nPyIx&ws_ab_test=searchweb201556_9_71_72_73_74_75,searchweb201527_4,searchweb201560_9 i hope their idea of a servo is not one of those stepping things TomP tjtr33 |
|
From: Marius L. <ma...@ma...> - 2015-11-05 14:53:04
|
Tom That seems a bit cheap. Also the D525 is not the best choice. I have on on my mill and it suffers a bit with performance. ------ Original Message ------ From: "TJoseph Powderly" <tj...@gm...> To: "EMC developers" <emc...@li...> Sent: 2015-11-05 16:43:46 Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Spotted on Ali-Express (Via the forum) >thx andy >and this too >someone offers both a computer and the cards for a realtime system > >http://www.aliexpress.com/item/CNC-PC-pre-install-LinuxCNC-with-Intel-ATOM-Dual-Core-D525-1-8GHz-for-MotCAT/32510918775.html?spm=2114.01020208.3.42.4nPyIx&ws_ab_test=searchweb201556_9_71_72_73_74_75,searchweb201527_4,searchweb201560_9 > >i hope their idea of a servo is not one of those stepping things >TomP tjtr33 > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >_______________________________________________ >Emc-developers mailing list >Emc...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers |
|
From: TJoseph P. <tj...@gm...> - 2015-11-05 15:44:49
|
another misconception on my part. i thought use of ethernet & hardware stepgens drastically reduced the need for fast pc threads. that latency didnt matter as much. i thought that 25 or 35uS latencies didnt matter. that even a 525 would work well given proper interface boards for me it's always buy/try/toss/repeat. i've got the inventory of boards listed on the latency test pages that just do not yield the same ( or remotely near) results people on the boards forums lists constantly pontify about some new mobo. caveat emptor: make sure of the return policy first. then test for a week ( consider that Fanuc and Mitsubishi and Heidenhain might do as much ) Thx for letting me know your actual experience. i consider that to be of value. i must agree that cheap and good rarely get together TomP tjtr33 |
|
From: Marius L. <ma...@ma...> - 2015-11-05 15:29:05
|
And that price is for the pc only. The controller pcb is sold for $248. Even for the pc by itself the price don't look right. The components only for that should be in the order of $215 ------ Original Message ------ From: "TJoseph Powderly" <tj...@gm...> To: "EMC developers" <emc...@li...> Sent: 2015-11-05 16:43:46 Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Spotted on Ali-Express (Via the forum) >thx andy >and this too >someone offers both a computer and the cards for a realtime system > >http://www.aliexpress.com/item/CNC-PC-pre-install-LinuxCNC-with-Intel-ATOM-Dual-Core-D525-1-8GHz-for-MotCAT/32510918775.html?spm=2114.01020208.3.42.4nPyIx&ws_ab_test=searchweb201556_9_71_72_73_74_75,searchweb201527_4,searchweb201560_9 > >i hope their idea of a servo is not one of those stepping things >TomP tjtr33 > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >_______________________________________________ >Emc-developers mailing list >Emc...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers |
|
From: Jeff E. <je...@un...> - 2015-11-05 15:21:28
|
I would not buy this device. Whatever "motcat" is, there is no driver for that in the software from linuxcnc.org. I would also be very surprised to hear these guys are meeting their obligations under the GPL, too. Jeff |
|
From: Jon E. <el...@pi...> - 2015-11-05 15:55:22
|
On 11/05/2015 09:21 AM, Jeff Epler wrote: > I would not buy this device. > > Whatever "motcat" is, there is no driver for that in the software from > linuxcnc.org. Somewhere in that Chinglish blurb, it says something about Load LinuxCNC, INSTALL DRIVER and go. So, I guess they have a custom driver. > I would also be very surprised to hear these guys are meeting their > obligations under the GPL, too. > From China? No surprise. Jon |
|
From: Dave C. <lin...@gm...> - 2015-11-05 16:29:55
|
On 11/5/2015 10:55 AM, Jon Elson wrote: > On 11/05/2015 09:21 AM, Jeff Epler wrote: >> I would not buy this device. >> >> Whatever "motcat" is, there is no driver for that in the software from >> linuxcnc.org. > Somewhere in that Chinglish blurb, it says something about > Load LinuxCNC, INSTALL DRIVER and go. > So, I guess they have a custom driver. >> I would also be very surprised to hear these guys are meeting their >> obligations under the GPL, too. >> > From China? No surprise. > > Jon > That's $140 just for the PC with LinuxCNC loaded. The Ethernet driven "servo" card is $249.00 (Looks like step and direction output) So the package is $400.00 I can see them making that work money wise in China. I suspect you can pickup a 525 clone motherboard over there for $40 or less. GPL... ? As long as they state that they are not selling LinuxCNC, how could get they get trouble with that? I don't know if they actually state that or not. Besides, doesn't all licensing and licensing legalities stop at the China border? I'm pretty sure that Mach3 is freely exchanged in China. When I was there a couple of years ago the local engineers told me that they routinely bought American movies on DVDS as soon as they were released to the theaters in the US. He said the DVDs cost the equivalent of one dollar US or less. Dave Dave --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
|
From: Jeff E. <je...@un...> - 2015-11-06 01:02:46
|
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Dave Cole wrote: > GPL... ? As long as they state that they are not selling LinuxCNC, > how could get they get trouble with that? Selling a PC with LinuxCNC preinstalled is "commercial distribution", so absolutely they have to take several positive actions to be in compliance with the GPL. See the GPL version 2 section 3. Yes, I know that as a matter of practicality nobody is going to 'get these guys' for copyright infringement, whether of LinuxCNC or Mach or any other software. Jeff |
|
From: Nicholas Mc G. <der...@ho...> - 2015-11-06 01:27:02
|
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 07:02:39PM -0600, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Dave Cole wrote: > > GPL... ? As long as they state that they are not selling LinuxCNC, > > how could get they get trouble with that? > > Selling a PC with LinuxCNC preinstalled is "commercial distribution", so > absolutely they have to take several positive actions to be in > compliance with the GPL. See the GPL version 2 section 3. > > Yes, I know that as a matter of practicality nobody is going to 'get > these guys' for copyright infringement, whether of LinuxCNC or Mach or > any other software. > If its a clear violation I would not ignore it and ask FSF/FSFE for their opinion and/or support. If the violation is due to them not providing a suitable written notice /media or appropriate license to those they handed the software on to then this is something that can be resolved and if the companies in violation get notice from the right place (like the FSF) they might well be willing to comply - I would assume that most such violations are ignorance more than intent. Pleas do not just ignore such cases if they can be documented clearly. thx! hofrat |
|
From: EBo <eb...@sa...> - 2015-11-06 02:44:49
|
On Nov 5 2015 6:02 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Dave Cole wrote: >> GPL... ? As long as they state that they are not selling >> LinuxCNC, >> how could get they get trouble with that? > > Selling a PC with LinuxCNC preinstalled is "commercial distribution", > so > absolutely they have to take several positive actions to be in > compliance with the GPL. See the GPL version 2 section 3. > > Yes, I know that as a matter of practicality nobody is going to 'get > these guys' for copyright infringement, whether of LinuxCNC or Mach > or > any other software. Mach is one thing, but if they provide the source then are they not in compliance? |
|
From: Len S. <le...@pr...> - 2015-11-06 13:52:07
|
Jeff, Doesn't that also apply to PathPilot, then? Or is it okay to build a new UI and rebrand it? >Len On 11/5/2015 7:02 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Dave Cole wrote: >> GPL... ? As long as they state that they are not selling LinuxCNC, >> how could get they get trouble with that? > Selling a PC with LinuxCNC preinstalled is "commercial distribution", so > absolutely they have to take several positive actions to be in > compliance with the GPL. See the GPL version 2 section 3. > > Yes, I know that as a matter of practicality nobody is going to 'get > these guys' for copyright infringement, whether of LinuxCNC or Mach or > any other software. > > Jeff > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > |
|
From: Jeff E. <je...@un...> - 2015-11-06 14:23:03
|
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 07:44:41PM -0700, EBo wrote: > Mach is one thing, but if they provide the source then are they not in > compliance? On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 06:51:56AM -0600, Len Shelton wrote: > Doesn't that also apply to PathPilot, then? Or is it okay to build a new > UI and rebrand it? These are both cases of commercial, binary distribution. This is permitted under the GNU GPL version 2 as long as the requirements in sections 2 and 3 are met. In the case of commercial, binary distribution, merely saying "the source code can be downloaded from linuxcnc.org" is not sufficient for compliance. Basically, the distributor must provide "complete corresponding machine readable source code" for their "work based on the Program" either by simply providing it at the same time the binary is provided, or by offering to provide copies of the source code at cost to anyone who requests it. (see particularly Section 3 items (a) and (b)) "Work based on the program" is not an entirely trivial concept to pin down, but ultimately it includes whatever uses would have been infringement under copyright law if not allowed by the GPL. If your program cannot be built and used without doing one or more of the following, then you probably should consider it a "Work based on [a GPL] program": * Include a GPL source or header file to compile * Link with a library containing object code built from GPL files (static or dynamic linking) * Import a module, package, or component built from GPL source files (interpreted language counterpart to "linking") If you are using a Debian system, the full text of the license is at /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2. I encourage you to read it for yourself, it is not that long and tries to use plain language where possible while still being a legal document. If you plan to make a business that will copy and distribute software in binary form, and even one piece of that software is GPL, then you should retain a lawyer familiar with the issues surrounding the GPL and copyright law in order to make sure you are in compliance. Jeff |
|
From: EBo <eb...@sa...> - 2015-11-06 14:26:59
|
Len, Your questions are complicated. In order to know what you can and cannot do you have to look at every single part that makes up the code base - for example are you calling any libraries which are specifically GPL? That will cause you the same problem just one level down. Remember that there is also the LGPL which (at least from my understanding) that you can link in a project without being required to also release under GPL, but any changes to those libraries would have to be released open source. So, to answer your question you have to look at whatever you use to rewrite the UI. There is also another aspect that you have not touched on - underlying intent and community involvement. If you basically take someone’s ideas that were developed here and rewrite them and then make a new version and release it under a closed source commercial license you might well piss a few people off. So, is PathPilot your original work? Did others contribute to it? If the answers are No and No, such that this is 100% your project and you just want to make sure that you are in compliance with the licenses, then as the author you can do so without needing to ask anyone. In fact you can rebrand your code to any license you choose, but you will never be able to take away the GPL rights of any code you released in the past -- you just do not have to maintain it (for an odd bit of history on something like this look into Adaptive Clearing). If it is not 100% your ideas and work, then it quickly gets muddled. I would suggest that if you go this way that you do a clean-room re-engineering of the interface and use absolutely nothing from the original code base or UI -- start with basic principles and redesign from scratch. One other thing about the community involvement - all the work of the folks here made it possible for you to make this other tools. It is only because they made the source available to each other that you can even do this. Part of that is giving back to the community in various ways (including source code). Also, just because something is released open source does not mean that you cannot sell services or other products. It will just look different. ... end 2.001379 (2c adjusted for inflation). EBo -- On Nov 6 2015 5:51 AM, Len Shelton wrote: > Jeff, > > Doesn't that also apply to PathPilot, then? Or is it okay to build a > new > UI and rebrand it? > > >Len > > > > On 11/5/2015 7:02 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Dave Cole wrote: >>> GPL... ? As long as they state that they are not selling >>> LinuxCNC, >>> how could get they get trouble with that? >> Selling a PC with LinuxCNC preinstalled is "commercial >> distribution", so >> absolutely they have to take several positive actions to be in >> compliance with the GPL. See the GPL version 2 section 3. >> >> Yes, I know that as a matter of practicality nobody is going to 'get >> these guys' for copyright infringement, whether of LinuxCNC or Mach >> or >> any other software. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Emc-developers mailing list >> Emc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers |
|
From: Dave C. <lin...@gm...> - 2015-11-06 16:49:59
|
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
|
From: Dave C. <lin...@gm...> - 2015-11-06 20:22:09
|
At one time or another I have read through all of the GPL license verbiage. If you do that, you need to have some coffee on hand, otherwise it is nap time! I buy and install a lot of Siemens automation hardware. Every HMI/Operator screen that I buy comes with a small CD that has nothing on it other than GPL'ed source code. They make extensive use of GPL software in their HMI industrial products and they have a shipload of lawyers to tell them what they can and can't do and still be legal in basically every country on the planet. I've read the GPL licenses and from what I have seen, if you follow the rules and simply make whatever software you add to a GPL'ed project also GPL, you can sell the hardware with the binary software preloaded. That is exactly what Siemens does. Their HMI screens cost from about $300 to $3000 each typically. Their hardware has the current technology which is near impossible to reverse engineer for most mortals, so giving out the source code is like giving a person the key to your safety deposit box but not telling them which bank or country the box is located in. More and more of the equipment I buy has some level of GPL software content. You open the box and a little CD falls out. A sure sign of installed GPL software. Regarding Tormach, it appears that they have taken the same approach. The last I heard, you can get the source code to everything that they supply. So basically Tormach followed the same rules and they sell machines and make a profit and benefit from using GPL'ed software. Most people know that Tormach was not the first nor will they be the last. Smithy was doing something similar but IMO they weren't following the GPL rules. When I tried to get their source code years ago they just gave me the run around. Letters and phone calls got me no where. Regarding the guy selling the product from China, if he supplies a CD with the source code, including his driver code (not that I know that he does or not) how could he be violating the GPL ?? Dave On 11/6/2015 9:26 AM, EBo wrote: > Len, > > Your questions are complicated. In order to know what you can and > cannot do you have to look at every single part that makes up the code > base - for example are you calling any libraries which are specifically > GPL? That will cause you the same problem just one level down. > Remember that there is also the LGPL which (at least from my > understanding) that you can link in a project without being required to > also release under GPL, but any changes to those libraries would have to > be released open source. So, to answer your question you have to look > at whatever you use to rewrite the UI. > > There is also another aspect that you have not touched on - underlying > intent and community involvement. If you basically take someone’s ideas > that were developed here and rewrite them and then make a new version > and release it under a closed source commercial license you might well > piss a few people off. So, is PathPilot your original work? Did others > contribute to it? If the answers are No and No, such that this is 100% > your project and you just want to make sure that you are in compliance > with the licenses, then as the author you can do so without needing to > ask anyone. In fact you can rebrand your code to any license you > choose, but you will never be able to take away the GPL rights of any > code you released in the past -- you just do not have to maintain it > (for an odd bit of history on something like this look into Adaptive > Clearing). If it is not 100% your ideas and work, then it quickly gets > muddled. I would suggest that if you go this way that you do a > clean-room re-engineering of the interface and use absolutely nothing > from the original code base or UI -- start with basic principles and > redesign from scratch. > > One other thing about the community involvement - all the work of the > folks here made it possible for you to make this other tools. It is > only because they made the source available to each other that you can > even do this. Part of that is giving back to the community in various > ways (including source code). Also, just because something is > released open source does not mean that you cannot sell services or > other products. It will just look different. > > ... end 2.001379 (2c adjusted for inflation). > > EBo -- > > On Nov 6 2015 5:51 AM, Len Shelton wrote: >> Jeff, >> >> Doesn't that also apply to PathPilot, then? Or is it okay to build a >> new >> UI and rebrand it? >> >> >Len >> >> >> >> On 11/5/2015 7:02 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Dave Cole wrote: >>>> GPL... ? As long as they state that they are not selling >>>> LinuxCNC, >>>> how could get they get trouble with that? >>> Selling a PC with LinuxCNC preinstalled is "commercial >>> distribution", so >>> absolutely they have to take several positive actions to be in >>> compliance with the GPL. See the GPL version 2 section 3. >>> >>> Yes, I know that as a matter of practicality nobody is going to 'get >>> these guys' for copyright infringement, whether of LinuxCNC or Mach >>> or >>> any other software. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Emc-developers mailing list >>> Emc...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Emc-developers mailing list >> Emc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers |
