Dear Emmanuel, all; Personally, I laud this decision. It appears reasonable and based on a well founded analysis.
Congratulations, to the whole community! --Pekka > On 2015–03–22, at 15:02 , Emmanuel Baccelli <emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr> > 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] http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2869521 > <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2869521>_______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
