Re: [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?
Hello Emmanuel and RIOTers, > In my opinion, what we need is statements from legal departments from > companies that are genuinely interested in RIOT technically. Is LGPLv2.1 a > show stopper for them, or not? What is the main reason why? This is the key > information the community should consider. > > Cheers, > > Emmanuel Statement of PHYTEC Messtechnik GmbH to LGPL and "Switch to BSD": We spend an equal amount of time on software development as on hardware development. Phytec contributes to the Linux Kernel. We know the (L)GPL license and work with it every day. Phytec is also founding member of OSADL (Open Source Automation Development Lab). We want to see RIOT as a "Linux" for small microcontrollers in IoT world. We find the LGPL pass very well with a project like RIOT and support the use of LGPL. As Linux-Kernel, RIOT is a part of an infrastructure and this should remain free and open. With the change to BSD we fear the RIOT will do more harm than good. LGPL binds community and the companies together and ensures that a project will not getting fragmented and falling apart. We do not support the change to BSD and we are sure that RIOT will be more attractive by other measures. Currently we rely on RIOT as first choice, with a change to BSD license we would think it over again. Best regards Mit freundlichen Grüßen M.Eng. Johann Fischer - Entwicklung - PHYTEC Messtechnik GmbH Robert-Koch-Str. 39 55129 Mainz Germany Tel.: +49 (0)6131 9221-0 Web: http://www.phytec.de PHYTEC Messtechnik GmbH, Robert-Koch-Str. 39, 55129 Mainz, Germany; Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Mitezki, Handelsregister Mainz, HRB 4656, Finanzamt Mainz-Mitte, St.Nr. 266500608, DE 149059855 This E-Mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this E-Mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this E-Mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this E-Mail is strictly forbidden. ___ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?
Hi Akshay, Thanks for your input on this topic. With the current license, are you able to plan using RIOT as a component for some of your company's products or services? Best, Emmanuel Le 4 déc. 2014 05:13, "Akshay Mishra" a écrit : > This (migrating to a BSD license) should be an "awesome" step, especially > for small design companies like us. > > Thanks, > Akshay > > On 4 December 2014 at 03:29, Emmanuel Baccelli > wrote: > >> Dear RIOTers, >> >> we have been receiving an increasing amount of negative feedback from >> various companies concerning the practical usability of our LGPL license in >> their context, being a show-stopper. >> >> For this reason, INRIA, Freie Universitaet (FU) Berlin and Hamburg >> University of Applied Science (HAW) are currently considering changing the >> license of their contributions to RIOT to a less restrictive license (i.e. >> BSD, potentially as soon as next release). >> >> Such a switch to BSD is betting that the effect of a potentially smaller >> percentage of user/devel contributing back to the master branch will be >> dwarfed by the effect of a user/devel community growing much bigger and >> quicker. This seems doable considering the current momentum around RIOT. >> >> In a second phase, if such a license switch takes place for INRIA/FU/HAW >> contributions, we would then contact other contributors individually, to >> check their status concerning a similar switch for their own contributions. >> >> 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 change, feel free to indicate this as well. >> Please send your opinion to the list before Dec. 10th. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Emmanuel >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?
Hi Joakim, Thanks for your feedback. With the current license, are you able to plan using RIOT as a component for some of your company's products or services? Best, Emmanuel Le 4 déc. 2014 09:30, "Joakim Gebart" a écrit : > I am also very much in favor of using a license which requires > openness but like Adam said, in the embedded world it is quite common > that changes will be necessary in order to support some hardware > configuration. Additionally, the interpretation that we would need > dynamic linking in order to comply with the license without opening up > all application code makes this a quite important question. > > Companies are not always willing or even able (because of patents, > NDAs or other contracts) to release the source of proprietary > applications. The use of LGPL in RIOT has been the source of some > discussion between me and my colleagues and I hope to see some other > license in the future where it is possible to still distribute > proprietary applications that run on RIOT. > > Eistec (see www.eistec.se) generally has the policy that anything > related to the platform and OS (cpu drivers, device drivers, etc) will > be sent upstream to related OSS projects, mainly RIOT and Contiki for > now (but we have also provided some patches for other tools we use, > such as OpenOCD), but we usually want to keep application code > (algorithms, higher level service implementations etc.) proprietary. > Since we work as a consulting firm it is also common that we do not > own the code to the applications themselves but have to negotiate with > the client on what parts to release, clients are usually fine with > sharing bug fixes and low level driver and OS code with upstream. > So far we have only used Contiki commercially but I personally would > like to see that change in the future, but for now I think the risk of > ending up in a situation where someone can demand any proprietary > application code from us makes this a bit too dangerous. > > This is my personal view on the license situation, but I know that > many of the people I work with share this concern. > > Best regards > Joakim Gebart > Managing Director > Eistec AB > > Aurorum 1C > 977 75 Luleå > Tel: +46(0)730-65 13 83 > joakim.geb...@eistec.se > www.eistec.se > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Adam Hunt wrote: > > While I've been a fervent supporter of the GPL for many years I'm on > board > > with a change to a simple BSD or MIT style license. Initially I was > > skeptical about the need to move away from the LGPL but in the world of > > embedded systems it's very common to make changes to the core codebase in > > order to work on various platforms. Under the LGPL such changes would > have > > to be tracked, checked for IP conflicts, and made available. This > > requirement may very well end up being so onerous that it may vary well > push > > companies to adopt a more suitably licensed alternative over RIOT. > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014, 2:14 PM Thomas Watteyne > > > wrote: > >> > >> Emmanuel, > >> I support the change to BSD. One of the reasons is that OpenWSN is also > on > >> BSD, so integration of the different code bases might be easier when > both > >> have the same license. > >> Thomas > >> > >> On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, Emmanuel Baccelli > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear RIOTers, > >>> > >>> we have been receiving an increasing amount of negative feedback from > >>> various companies concerning the practical usability of our LGPL > license in > >>> their context, being a show-stopper. > >>> > >>> For this reason, INRIA, Freie Universitaet (FU) Berlin and Hamburg > >>> University of Applied Science (HAW) are currently considering changing > the > >>> license of their contributions to RIOT to a less restrictive license > (i.e. > >>> BSD, potentially as soon as next release). > >>> > >>> Such a switch to BSD is betting that the effect of a potentially > smaller > >>> percentage of user/devel contributing back to the master branch will be > >>> dwarfed by the effect of a user/devel community growing much bigger and > >>> quicker. This seems doable considering the current momentum around > RIOT. > >>> > >>> In a second phase, if such a license switch takes place for > INRIA/FU/HAW > >>> contributions, we would then contact other contributors individually, > to > >>> check their status concerning a similar switch for their own > contributions. > >>> > >>> 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 change, feel free to indicate this as > well. > >>> Please send your opinion to the list before Dec. 10th. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Emmanuel > >> > >> ___ > >> devel mailing list > >> devel@riot-os.org > >> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > >
Re: [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?
Hey, On 12/16/2014 06:09 PM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote: (L)GPL tries to put some restrictions on that. Mostly, the source code cannot realistically be sold as long it's (L)GPL. This is not correct (depending on your definition of code and selling of course). I know that you know what my definition of selling is with respect to the discussion. Kaspar ___ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [riot-devel] Periodical (virtual) meetings
Hi!
PlaceCam is go at:
http://placecam.de/call.php?c=VBYEpXi43MZ2MOrV~pegsMm6Z7woUbw.VRY0Qxal2pE-
Cheers,
Oleg
Am Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:03:52PM +0100 schrieb Oleg Hahm:
> 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 arrive in Hamburg that
> early, but I figured out that there might be actual time to have the meeting
> before we have to mount the car. So, let's have the meeting as originally
> planned.
>
> Cheers,
> Oleg
> --
> printk(CARDNAME": Bad Craziness - sent packet while busy.\n" );
> linux-2.6.6/drivers/net/smc9194.c
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@riot-os.org
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
printk("Cool stuff's happening!\n")
linux-2.4.3/fs/jffs/intrep.c
pgp26DvgAWLou.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
