Hi Matthias!

>   I thought that we already decided to exclude exotic licenses.

Yes. GPL + Linker Exception is not exotic.

>   With respect to this specific license:
> 
>   (1) We cannot use the license because the license text is specific to 
> eCos (e.g., "eCos is distributed [...]").

And original BSD license (http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_4Clause)
is specific to "Computer Systems Engineering group at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory", which is obviously no blocker to be adopted elsewhere. I don't
see why replacing the name of the project should invalidate a license.
 
>   (2) We should not use the license because it is not approved by the 
> Open Source Initiative. OSI approval is important for some open source 
> funding programmes etc.

Seems to work quite successfully for eCos, ERIKA [1], GNU Guile [2], libgcc
[3], NetBeans [4], ChibiOS [5] and several other bigger projects. Would be
interesting what FSF says about it. At least eCos, ERIKA and ChibiOS are very
similar to RIOT from a software architecture point of view (OS for embedded
hardware).

>   If you want to spend more time on this, I recommend the thread 
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html,
>  
> in particular 
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-September/000910.html.

I haven't found any clear answers in these two mails and don't want to spend
the rest of the evening reading through another license discussion, I have
enough with this one here. From what I've read, I gather that oSI doesn't
want to approve it, because there's no need to approve it:
"why not simply stop referring to 'the eCos License 2.0' as though it were a
special license and instead characterize eCos as being licensed as 'GPLv2 or
later' with a permissive exception? I've encountered other projects using
similarly-worded GPL exceptions but to my recollection those projects
characterize themselves as being GPL-licensed."


Long story short: I see your concerns, but for me GPL + Linking Exception is a
common license model that works well for many well-known and mature projects.
Personally, I would think that GPL + Linking Exception matches our needs far
better than LGPL.

As I see it now, we won't come to any conclusion for or against switching to a
non-copyleft license that satisfies everyone, because the goals and visions
where to go with RIOT are too different.

Cheers,
Oleg

[1] http://erika.tuxfamily.org/
[2] https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
[3] https://gcc.gnu.org/
[4] http://netbeans.org/
[5] http://www.chibios.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=chibios:license
-- 
The bad thing about IPv6 jokes is that nobody wants to tell them first.

Attachment: pgp1cZZ9i0yrl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to