License of binarized G-code specification?

[voxpelli]

trafficstars

What license is the binarized G-code specification released under?

The license of this project is AGPL but that isn't very suitable for a standard, especially not a standard that wants to achieve wide adoption.

Something like the CC0 + OWFa that Mozilla suggest, or a similar other alternative, would be preferable.

[bubnikv]

We plan to change the license to a BSD like one.

pá 20. 10. 2023 v 18:51 odesílatel Pelle Wessman @.***> napsal:

What license is the binarized G-code specification https://github.com/prusa3d/libbgcode/blob/main/doc/specifications.md released under?

The license of this project is AGPL but that isn't very suitable for a standard, especially not a standard that wants to achieve wide adoption.

Something like the CC0 https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ + OWFa https://www.openwebfoundation.org/the-agreements/the-owf-1-0-agreements-granted-claims/owfa-1-0 that Mozilla suggest https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/license, or a similar other alternative, would be preferable.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/prusa3d/libbgcode/issues/24, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMPSI3SYZ5T5OGTSJ32WF3YAKTYLAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6JJZ7JSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZRHE2TINRZGQZTENY . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[voxpelli]

Remember that BSD is only a code license, not a license for specifications

[hyperair]

Also related, who's the copyright holder for this project? It doesn't seem to be specified anywhere. I need to fill it in to package this for Debian.

[voxpelli]

@bubnikv Any news on the specification license and/or the library license?

[bubnikv]

We asked the meatpack author @scottmudge to change his license to a permissive one. I asked @lukasmatena to change the license of our library to the same BSD4 license. https://github.com/scottmudge/OctoPrint-MeatPack/blob/master/LICENSE

[voxpelli]

@bubnikv @scottmudge @lukasmatena Interesting choice, because BSD4 is not GPL-compatible, see eg: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD

MIT / BSD 3-clause / Apache 2.0 / Blue Oak would therefore all be a better choice for a a permissive code license, especially if you expect it to interface with GPL-code

Also: That license only deals with code, not with the license of the specification itself

[voxpelli]

@bubnikv Any news?

[scottmudge]

Apologies, hadn't checked on this in a while. Re-released under BSD-3 if it helps with integrating.