Re: [Emc-developers] Spotted on Ali-Express (Via the forum)

[Dave C. <lin...@gm...>]

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