Why don't you do like Micro$oft?, hide the acknoledgement in your binary. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=BSD%20Code%20in%20Windows
It does however use some code space, but heck, sure you can spare 200 bytes for that :) I do not encourage it, but it is sure an alternative to having the acknowledgement in the manual. On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sebastien Lelong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear AVR guys, > > > I'm here to ask you some feedback about using an open source license for > embedded systems, particularly the BSD license. I'm currently working on a > project, jallib, trying to build a set of libraries, compatible with jalv2 > compiler, target chips being Microchip PICs (but I come here in peace :)). > > jallib is licensed under BSD. We've released the first beta version few days > ago, and several license issues came to the surface... It appears one clause > in the BSD license may not be appropriate for embedded systems. It says: > > "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, > this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation > and/or other materials provided with the distribution." > > The problem here is the programmed chips, which are considered as binary > forms. So here are my questions: > > 1. first of all, do you think programmed chips are binary forms (I do), and > thus should follow the BSD rules ? > 2. in that case, how do you deal with the redistribution ? Should they > reproduce the copyright notice, as stated in the license ? > 3. is there anybody using avr-libc in commercial projects ? Has BSD too > much restrictions for commercial products in the embedded world, or is it an > appropriate license ? If possible, I'd like to have some feedback both from > developers and people using it in commercial products... > 4. Combining 2. and 3., how the redistribution, with the copyright notice, > is done ? On a bill ? On a website ? > > Here are the two main arguments we're currently discussing: > > 1. BSD license has too much restrictions, because it forces users to > distribute a copyright notice when distributing/selling programmed chips. A > zlib license is more appropriate, because reproducing the copyright notice > when distributing programmed chips is not mandatory in this case. > > 2. BSD is an appropriate license to distribute programmed chips. > Distributing/selling programmed chips requires the copyright notice to be > reproduced, but that's a restriction people have to deal with if they want > to use it. > > I'm 100% in favor of argument 2.: I consider when using Open Source software > or libraries, you have to accept restrictions, one of these being : "give > credit where credit is due". But people in argument 1. say reproducing a > copyright notice is not possible, and/or don't think programmed chips should > require to give credit (while considering them as binary forms), and say > BSD, as many other OS licenses, is not designed for the embedded world. > > What's your opinion on this ? How did you deal with this ? > > You may say it's not related to your project, which I fully understand. I > tried to find several open source projects doing the same, and this one > appears to have a lot of similarities, so here I am. I would be very > grateful if you could give me some feedback on this, even if it's not > directly related to your project. > > Some links as references: > > * jallib: http://code.google.com/p/jallib/ > * jallist topic talking about license issues (long): > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jallist/message/25915 > > Let me know if you need any other information. Many thanks in advance for > your help and feedback. > > > Cheers, > Seb > -- > Sébastien Lelong > http://www.sirloon.net > http://sirbot.org > _______________________________________________ > AVR-libc-dev mailing list > AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev > _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
