From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20182 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2007 11:39:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 20172 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2007 11:39:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from uu212-190-204-68.unknown.uunet.be (HELO outsider.wtcm.be) (212.190.204.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:39:01 +0000 Received: from server04.site04.wtcm.be (server04.site04.wtcm.be [192.168.64.1]) by outsider.wtcm.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F1A298028; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:41:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ampere.labo01.fmtc.be (gatefmtc.site04.wtcm.be [192.168.78.3]) by server04.site04.wtcm.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977DCE2CF2; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:38:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:39:00 -0000 From: Klaas Gadeyne To: Andrew Lunn Cc: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070801123053.GC31277@lunn.ch> Message-ID: References: <20070731093508.GE27886@lunn.ch> <20070731100040.GF27886@lunn.ch> <20070731121216.GG27886@lunn.ch> <20070731130119.GH27886@lunn.ch> <20070801100925.GA15536@lunn.ch> <20070801123053.GC31277@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Project ideas for graduate course X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> Even _without_ all the license issues that would be a good thing. >> However, when we first implemented EML, the EtherCAT people were still >> working on conformance testing. > > Is that now finished? Is it time for version 0.2 of the code with > extra conformance testing? It's been a while since I've worked on the code, but as far as I understand from , the conformance "testtool" is a (windows only) tool for testing conformance of EtherCAT _slave_ devices only (while EML implements a master device). >> Also note that the extra clause is an agreement between Beckhoff and >> the licensee (and FMTC has nothing to do with that agreement), that >> "protects" the licensee from patent claims covering the EtherCAT >> technology. > > Maybe GPLv3 is the solution. That includes patent protection as far as > i understand. I've had a look at it, but I didn't understand it quite wel :-( (IANAL :-). The patent protection cases they described seemed to be referring to companies releasing OSS covered by patents they've possessed themselves. And then there is the MS/Novell deal which might be similar to our case, but - I don't know what the "mistakes" were MS made while making the deal which led to GPLv3 - We don't really have a _deal_ with the people at Beckhoff. As a IANAL conclusion, and I can only speak for myself: IMO the intention of the people at Beckhoff is not to hinder (at all) the spreading of (modified versions) of open source implementations of EtherCAT master functionality, so one shouldn't be too scared being sued as long as one (tries to) follow the standard. Whether the license agreement is the best way to achieve that, I really don't know (and even less after this thread), but the lawyers at Beckhoff seem to have thought so... Anyway, thanks a lot for your comments! Klaas -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss