Hi everyone, GPL with linking exception seems relevant in this discussion -- especially since eCOS, which is also a well-known embedded OS, uses this license.
As a side note, but highly related: at Embedded World yesterday, we met with the Eclipse Foundation [1] guys. RIOT is now officially invited to become an Eclipse project. There are a number of advantages to be under the Eclipse umbrella: they provide legal services, and the IoT part of this umbrella [2] is actively helping communities such as RIOT to grow organically: in particular they promise promotion, and matchmaking with other FOSS communities and relevant industrial partners. There are however strings attached: Eclipse has good reputation as far as I can tell, but nevertheless some of our independence is lost if we join, and we have to use the Eclipse Public License [3]. In any case, the Eclipse Foundation guys were stressing that CLAs [4] are crucial, whatever we do, whether we join Eclipse Foundation or not. Best, Emmanuel [1] https://eclipse.org/org/foundation/ [2] http://iot.eclipse.org [3] https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#CPLEPL [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Adam Hunt <voxa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
