I'd be willing to bet that GNU Classpath is one of the oldest projects licensed under the GPL with a linking exception.
Classpath is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License > with the following clarification and special exception. > Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making > a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of > the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination. > > As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you > permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an > executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, > and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your > choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, > the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent > module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If > you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of > the library, but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, > delete this exception statement from your version. > [1 <https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html>] > --adam [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 5:08:12 PM Oleg Hahm <oliver.h...@inria.fr> wrote: > 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 > RIOT. > > > > 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. > > Cheers, > Oleg > -- > The problem with TCPIP jokes is that when I tell them, all I want is an > ACK but > usually get FINs and RSTs > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
