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

Reply via email to