Hi, I've answered so many posts in jallist about this, that I forgot the summarize here what this is about. I apologize for this, and will try to summarize this, without modifying the main spirit of jallist's posts.
Here we go :) We've released jallib under BSD license (3-clauses). Some people, mainly Wouter, and also Eur, don't like it, because this license says that, when distributing programmed chips, the license should be reproduced. This is because a programmed chip is a binary form, so it must follow the 2nd clause. There was a first thought about things like: "a PIC should store the license in its memory, too much space !". I agree. Too much space. Reading the license, this is the redistribution which must reproduce the license, not the binary form itself (and I could give 100s of examples where the license isn't reproduced by the binary form). So, we agreed the redistribution should reproduce the license, not the PIC itself (except Eur, because he did not read all the posts:)). This means, when someone is distributing a PIC, there should be somewhere, like in the documentation, a mention about jallib license. Then, Wouter said about this: "this is too much a restriction, this assumes there's actually a documentation !". Right. I think there's always somewhere where you can put the license (I also expect to have a decent documentation when buying things, but that's another issue). This appeared not to be so easy, Wouter wants it to be without any restrictions, even this, even the slightly one. This activated my curiosity :) I needed to understand why ! After several interesting posts, the reason is Wouter doesn't feel strong, for programmed chips, about giving credit where it is due. At least, he doesn't consider this as important, and even "very inconvenient" ( http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jallist/message/25941 , http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jallist/message/25936). I don't understand this, and this is where we disagree: * Wouter wants a zlib, because with such a license, he can distribute PICs without mentioning jallib. * I disagree, because I want credits to be given to people who deserve it. Moving to zlib license will also allow people to distribute jallib's binaries other than PICs (there are, and there will be in the future), without *any* restrictions. This is an open door. Wouter wants to use it, without any restriction. I consider using open source libraries and/or softwares involves some restrictions. Those aren't the same as commercial libs, but there are. The BSD license is known to be one of the most permissive license. There's of course even more permissive ones, like zlib (designed for png file, I guess, so completely different context). I don't like it because it discards users from doing what they have to do: that is, give credits where it is due ! Wouter's main argument is: existing open source licenses aren't applicable to embedded system, like ones using PICs. This is absolutely not true (not to say, completely false). Many OS projects uses OS licenses, such as BSD or GPL. Without any problems. This is not a product of my imagination: I've asked to avr-libc guys, a concrete example, very similar to jallib. They provide a set of library for AVR, under the BSD license. WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS. More, and maybe this is where the problem may be (for me), people from this list are willing to give credits. They want it, *want* it. Even if it's sometime not that easy, they want it ( http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/avr-libc-dev/2008-11/msg00012.html). There's a big difference compared to here, where people (some) do *not* want to give credits. Wow... This kind of makes me sick... and this is why I'm so picky about this. If everybody was doing this, if BSD was really not a good choice, if all OS licenses were not appropriate for microcontrollers, I would accept it. But it's not the case: there are plenty of people using BSD, GPL, LGPL, etc... for microcontrollers. It's like it is a local problem, local to jal (and here from 2004...). But don't get me wrong: my goal is to make this project a success. If this means releasing it under zlib, then it should be done, it should be released under zlib. I have absolutely no problem about changing the license, I certainly won't oppose on this. But, and I'm sure you'll understand, I want to know where my time is going on this project. And I also want to be sure everybody here understands the pros and cons, before moving to this direction. 3. You chose the most restrictive version of the BSD license, rather > than the "simplified one". Why? Your answer to this may help me > understand your viewpoint better. As I said, the 2-clauses BSD license won't help in that case, because this is about distributing PICs, binary forms, etc... But I may be wrong, tell me what I miss if this case ! 4. Even though you chose the most restrictive BSD license, you have > indicated in the message here on his mailing list, that you would be > "OK" with people who distribute their pre-programmed picmicro chips > without any credits. And you've said that the result is the same as > using a zlib license. > 5. I've not found anywhere that you actually discuss in detail what > your objection to the zlib license actually is, other than "I don't > like it", which doesn't help me understand your viewpoint. Imagine the following two scenarios: * jallib is under zlib. People distribute PICs, without mentioning jallib. * jallib is under BSD. People distribute PICs, without mentioning jallib, even if they should. Result is the same: people distribute PICs, without mentioning jallib. Since no one will "open" PICs to see their guts, and try to guess if there's some jallib in it, if someone doesn't respect the license, we won't have any way to know it. I'm ok with it, because that's just the way it is. But it's not because the result is the same, that I should accept zlib, that is, that I should accept ALL people being allowed not to mention jallib. Having a license allowing people to distribute it, without giving credit, is different from having a license saying people must mentioning it, and having one or few persons not respecting the license. I look forward to gaining a better understanding of your viewpoint, > and, ultimately, seeing a resolution to this licensing issue. I hope this is more clear now... Let me know :) Thanks for trying to understand ! Cheers, Seb -- Sébastien Lelong http://www.sirloon.net http://sirbot.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
