If the proposed method in https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/2362 provides a way to legally comply with LGPL and still run proprietary binary application level code on RIOT, then my vote is on LGPL.
This will make sure that any improvements to core, sys, drivers etc are passed back to the project in the future as well, even if the actual applications are not open. Best regards, Joakim Gebart Managing Director Eistec AB Aurorum 1C 977 75 Luleå Tel: +46(0)730-65 13 83 joakim.geb...@eistec.se www.eistec.se On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Emmanuel Baccelli <emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > this thread has been silent since new year's break. > > Has anyone changed his/her mind on the topic in the mean time? > > Else, here's a tentative summary on where we are at, so far, in terms of > expressed opinions: > > - a few have stated their enthusiasm for MIT/BSD > - a few have stated their enthusiasm for (L)GPL > - the vast majority is less enthusiastic to either direction but could > approve a switch to MIT, for pragmatic reasons > > Is that fair enough, in a nutshell? > > On a related topic, concerning the technical feasibility of LGPL licensing > with RIOT, > I assume you have all seen this proposal > https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/wiki/LGPL-compliancy-guide > which is the first attempt at a practical guide to proprietary code in RIOT. > > Any comments on this in the context of the license discussion? > > Best, > > Emmanuel > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Emmanuel Baccelli > <emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr> wrote: >> >> Dear RIOTers, >> >> we have been receiving an increasing amount of negative feedback from >> various companies concerning the practical usability of our LGPL license in >> their context, being a show-stopper. >> >> For this reason, INRIA, Freie Universitaet (FU) Berlin and Hamburg >> University of Applied Science (HAW) are currently considering changing the >> license of their contributions to RIOT to a less restrictive license (i.e. >> BSD, potentially as soon as next release). >> >> Such a switch to BSD is betting that the effect of a potentially smaller >> percentage of user/devel contributing back to the master branch will be >> dwarfed by the effect of a user/devel community growing much bigger and >> quicker. This seems doable considering the current momentum around RIOT. >> >> In a second phase, if such a license switch takes place for INRIA/FU/HAW >> contributions, we would then contact other contributors individually, to >> check their status concerning a similar switch for their own contributions. >> >> But in the first place, we would like to debate this topic. In particular: >> is anyone violently opposing the idea of migrating to a less restrictive >> license, such as BSD? If so, why? On the other hand, if you explicitly >> support the license change, feel free to indicate this as well. Please send >> your opinion to the list before Dec. 10th. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Emmanuel > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > email@example.com > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel