Hello everyone,
Maybe was it already envisioned, but another strategy would be dual
licensing, something akin to what FreeRTOS does for example.
Using this scheme:
* we got (L)GPL by default, for academic contributors and everyone that
has nothing against open-source;
* the same code can be
Hi everyone,
I'm sorry to hop in that late. To be honest, I didn't come to a final
conclusion for myself, regarding the license-topic. Let me first say
that I wouldn't boycott the change to BSD. Still I need to say that I
have similar doubts like my previous speakers mentioned. One the one
(sorry for the post in users)
Hi all,
sorry for the late reply.
I'm not against a license change in general.
I understand the positions of companies to be restrained on LGPL.
They will not provide much effort, in manpower and finance, to find a
way to link their implementations to RIOT not
Hey,
On 12/15/2014 11:10 AM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
I'd rather add a static linking exception to our
current license (or switch to GPL with linking exception which amounts
to the same as far as I remember)
What kind of static linking exception do you have in mind?
Kaspar
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 01:08:24PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:10 AM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
I'd rather add a static linking exception to our
current license (or switch to GPL with linking exception which amounts
to the same as far as I remember)
What kind of static
Hello again,
As I said, I was just mentioning the possibility of dual-licensing.
I never said it was the right thing to do, as I didn't really thought
about it...
The only thing I'm really afraid of are software patents, since these
are visibly at the origin of many bad things (see the
Hey,
On 12/15/2014 01:19 PM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 01:08:24PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:10 AM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
I'd rather add a static linking exception to our
current license (or switch to GPL with linking exception which amounts
to the
Hey,
On 12/03/2014 10:59 PM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
But in the first place, we would like to debate this topic. In
particular: is anyone violently opposing the idea of migrating to a less
restrictive license, such as BSD? If so, why? On the other hand, if you
explicitly support the license
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 01:08:24PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:10 AM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
I'd rather add a static linking exception to our
current license (or switch to GPL with linking exception which amounts
to the same as far as I remember)
What kind of
Hi Kaspar!
1. The entity distributing such a product must mention the use of RIOT.
Isn't that the case also for some non-copyleft licenses (e.g. some BSD-style
licenses)? Not sure, just asking.
This requires the device to be field-upgradable
I still seriously doubt this. We're talking about
Hi,
2014-12-03 22:59 GMT+01:00 Emmanuel Baccelli emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr:
[…]
But in the first place, we would like to debate this topic. In particular:
is anyone violently opposing the idea of migrating to a less restrictive
license, such as BSD? If so, why? On the other hand, if you
Dear all,
On 15 Dec 2014, at 11:10, Ludwig Ortmann ludwig.ortm...@fu-berlin.de wrote:
As for the general topic of relicensing:
Personally speaking I’m rather pragmatic on this topic and either license is
fine for
me *but* I tend to advocate for MIT.
ad contributing back”: Apart from
Hi Martine!
Yes, I'm not among those (though I have to admit, that I missed the last to
meetings too :() + all the worlds not Berlin and Hamburg. If you see each
other you can join in bulk and the rest will join virtually. How about that?
That will probably not work out, because we won't
Hey Hauke!
In an ideal world I would personally want RIOT to be even published under
GPL, as of RIOT should be free. But we all know that world does not exist.
I would say: In an ideal world RIOT should have been published as public
domain.
Cheers,
Oleg
--
panic(smp_callin()
At risk of further confusing things maybe there's a happy medium between a
strong copyleft/(L)GPL and a the BSD license. While I'm most certainly not
a lawyer, copyright or otherwise, a quick look at the Eclipse Public License
https://eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php (EPL) and the related
15 matches
Mail list logo
