[Vacm-develop] Re: Relicensing of VACM components

[Tony K. <to...@op...>]

I am really sorry that you have this point of view on open source
software...

But in short... what use is publishing a piece of code with any kind
of license if you can't use it?  OK, choosing to publish your work
with an open-source license is one thing, but in my point of view,
I don't have the resources to go and implement a new version of
a piece of hardware and firmware developed by another company, and the
collateral to fight off any copyright charges or royalties charged
against me for re-developing that hardware or firmware, just so that
VACM can be used with it.

And in many of not most cases, the hardware/firmware I could want VACM to
work with is either embedded (I can't reproduce it myself even if I wanted
to) or comes in a library which is licensed in such a manner that it can
no way be GPL'd.  I very often get licenses from developer SDKs for
device driver software which boil down to "the enclosed software is so
close to non-disclosure that I'd be put in very serious trouble if any
of this code is exposed in any form other than the one  it is presented
to the developer when shipped".  And reverse engineering and
re-implementation is also out of the question as far as the licenses
and copyright that is shipped with the SDK are concerned.

There's no way that developers can use VACM with such resources if there
is severe limits to what hardware-related software products are available
as open-source anything.

So, given such a severe requirement for VACM to adhere to, what is the
point in publishing the software in that manner if its license prohibits
its use beyond being a toy for PC users?!

-- 
    Tony Kavadias <to...@ma...>


> From: Mike Snitzer <msn...@pl...>
> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:37:24 -0400
> To: to...@ma...
> Cc: vac...@li...
> Subject: Re: Relicensing of VACM components
> 
> I hope the remaining vacm project developers (are there any?) take a very
> strong stance against Tony's request to LGPL portions of vacm.  Reason
> being; _all_ of VACM has been made available under the GPL for public
> consumption and scrutiny, and as such many of us (much like Tony) have
> been able to make use of this monitoring framework.  I realize that
> ultimately Tony (and his company?) just want to protect the intellectual
> property that is their proprietary hardware solution but asking for vacm
> to be LGPL'd is like asking for any number of companies to use VACM for
> their personal/commercial gain without helping contribute to the
> intellectual property that gave them the ability to make use of libloose
> et. al. in the first place; namely the intellectual property of those
> developers who made VACM freely available (GPL'd) to the open source
> community.
> 
> The VACM project, and any GPL'd project for that matter, should make every
> attempt to encourage open standards in _both_ hardware and software.  If
> some developer/company doesn't like this; tell them to go else where for a
> solution!  If they have been able to engineer proprietary hardware that
> needs to be so highly guarded by means of closed source solutions; then
> they should have the know-how to be able to monitor their closed hardware
> with closed software that originates from within their company!
> 
> In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too.. and I hope others feel
> the same way.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> Tony Kavadias (to...@op...) said:
> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> I would like to ask for your comments in LGPL'ing the following
>> pieces of VACM:
>> 
>> - libloose, the library used to interface loosely coupled VACM
>> modules to nexxus,
>> - libvacmclient, the library required by VACM clients to communicate
>> with nexxus.
>> 
>> Also, the following ought to be re-licensed to allow complete
>> freedom in the use of the following code which would otherwise
>> not serve its intended purpose:
>> 
>> - skel, the sample code recommended for use with libloose in building
>> loosely coupled VACM modules.
>> 
>> The re-licensing of these components will help VACM:
>> 
>> - be useful in the deployment of control solutions where the
>> components or devices that need to be controlled include the use
>> of 
>> 
>> - be useful in the development of VACM clients, where these clients
>> may require the use of proprietary software, or allow people to
>> customize existing proprietary clients to allow them to become
>> VACM clients.
>> 
>> I would like to see VACM incorporate the use of the LGPL and/or
>> some other open-source license that does not enforce you to apply
>> that license to other code.  This is the very reason why I am seeing
>> VACM become difficult to deploy on projects outside the open source
>> development community.
>> 
>> I understand the GPL's role in providing free software to the computing
>> community at large, but I find that VACM's licensing as it currently
>> stands does not allow it to enter the environments which would other-
>> wise make it useful for its intended purpose in hardware control and
>> management.
>> 
>> I would like to see these licensing changes applied to VACM, and
>> I hope that other developers see my point of view in extending the
>> usefulness of VACM to areas that the GPL otherwise does not allow.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tony Kavadias <to...@ma...>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Vacm-develop mailing list
>> Vac...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vacm-develop