Dear Emmanuel, all;

Personally, I laud this decision.  It appears reasonable and based on a well 
founded analysis.

Congratulations, to the whole community!


> On 2015–03–22, at 15:02 , Emmanuel Baccelli <> 
> wrote:
> Dear all,
> thanks for the input from everyone on this topic. It is a tough case to 
> decide, based on our long and detailed exchanges on this subject. 
> But it is probably time to conclude. At INRIA, we came up with the following 
> observations:
> - there is no enthusiastic majority for a license change to BSD/MIT,
> - as solutions competing with RIOT are quasi-exclusively BSD/MIT, (L)GPL is a 
> way to stand out positively.
> Concerning this last point, we observed that staying on the (L)GPL side 
> strengthens our position comparing ourselves to Linux -- which has been one 
> of our key non-technical arguments so far.
> Furthermore, studies such as [1] show that small companies and start-ups are 
> going to determine IoT. More than bigger companies, such small structures 
> need to spread development and maintenance costs for the kernel and all the 
> software that is not their core business. Our analysis is that this is more 
> compatible with (L)GPL than with BSD/MIT.
> We are of the opinion that, compared to BSD/MIT, (L)GPL will improve final 
> user experience, security and privacy, by hindering device lock-down, 
> favoring up-to-date, and field-updgradable code. We think this a more solid 
> base to provide a consistent, compatible, secure-by-default standard system 
> which developers can build upon to create trustworthy IoT applications.
> Last but not least, we think that (L)GPL is a better base than BSD/MIT to 
> keep the community united in the mid and long run.
> For these reasons, even though we still believe a switch to BSD/MIT would 
> facilitate RIOT's penetration rate initially, we want to continue releasing 
> under LGPLv2.1.
> I also want to point out that even though this is basically "status quo", we 
> think this discussion was far from useless, because it helped clarify where 
> we stand, and for what.
> From our point of view, the next steps are now to set up a non-profit legal 
> entity for RIOT, and to put CLAs in place, allowing non-exclusive rights for 
> the code to this legal structure.
> Best,
> Emmanuel
> [1] 
> <>_______________________________________________
> devel mailing list

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

devel mailing list

Reply via email to