Hi Matthias!

>   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.

Yes, I agree, but at least it's listed (approved?) by FSF. Another option (see
citation from the OSI list from my previous mail) we could just state GPL as a
license and point to the exception for commercial users. I think the text on
the eCos page is pretty comprehensible.

The Wikipedia is even claiming that the perception "that without applying the
linking exception, code linked with GPL code may only be done using a
GPL-compatible license" is "unsupported by any legal precedent or citation".

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

I don't think so, but it's the only listed license from FSF that specifies the
linking exception.

>   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.

I agree, but if the choice is between a FSF approved license (as I understand
eCos License is) that matches our needs and a less matching OSI approved
license, I'm willing to bite this bullet.

> > At least eCos, ERIKA and ChibiOS are very similar to RIOT from a 
> > software architecture point of view (OS for embedded hardware).
> >
>   No comment ;).

For clarification: I was referring to the fact that these systems have a
similar use case as RIOT, not that there concept or feature set is similar to

> > 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 
> inclusive?

Again taken from the Wikipedia article: "the LGPL formulates more requirements
to the linking exception: you must allow modification of the portions of the
library you use and reverse engineering (of your program and the library) for
debugging such modifications."
> > 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.

Which is too bad.

The problem with TCPIP jokes is that when I tell them, all I want is an ACK but
usually get FINs and RSTs

Attachment: pgpIqv91lPag4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

devel mailing list

Reply via email to