Re: [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?

2015-03-22 Thread Emmanuel Baccelli
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
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


Re: [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?

2015-03-22 Thread Pekka Nikander
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


Re: [riot-devel] Removing thirdparty repositories

2015-03-22 Thread Joakim Gebart
I haven't looked too closely, but I think at least the ideas put
forward in https://github.com/RIOT-OS/thirdparty_cpu/pull/3 are
useful. The PRs are old so they probably won't work on the current
master but the LPM stuff is interesting.
On the thirdparty_boards repo I didn't find anything interesting.

Best regards,
Joakim Gebart
www.eistec.se


On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Oleg Hahm oliver.h...@inria.fr wrote:
 Dear rousing IoTlers,

 since we don't need the thirdparty repositories for CPUs and boards any more
 for quite some time, I think we should finally remove them. Any objections?
 Can anyone with some experience with the Cortex ports take a look at the PRs
 in these repos that are still open and see if they contain anything useful
 that might be applied to the current implementation in RIOT master?

 Cheers,
 Oleg
 --
 arrival order packet joke is critical to good a make

 ___
 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