Hi Oleg,

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Oleg Hahm wrote:

> >   I thought that we already decided to exclude exotic licenses.
> Yes. GPL + Linker Exception is not exotic.
  but the name (or license branding). We had this discussion before. 
Rather unknown licenses need to be explained. Using eCos license is 
similar to use a RIOT license.

> >   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.

  I'm just wondering if eCos is the first license with the introduced 
exception -- I will not research on this ;).

> >   (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.
  I never said it's impossible. In this type of discussion you will 
always find counterexamples. I just wanted to point out that I see it as 
an advantage to use an OSI approved license.

> At least eCos, ERIKA and ChibiOS are very similar to RIOT from a 
> software architecture point of view (OS for embedded hardware).
  No comment ;).
> >   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.
  Can you explain in one our two sentences why? Because it's more 

> 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.
  At least we don't get new basic insights with this thread.


Matthias Waehlisch
.  Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
.  Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
.. mailto:waehli...@ieee.org .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl
:. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net
devel mailing list

Reply via email to