Hi Emmanuel, all,
forgot to reply on this: We at HAW are fine with keeping LGPL license.
So no conflict from our side.
Best,
Thomas
On 22.03.2015 14:02, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
Dear all,
thanks for the input from everyone on this topic. It is a tough case to
decide, based on our long and
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
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
Hey,
On 02/25/2015 11:39 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
GPL with linking exception seems relevant in this discussion --
especially since eCOS, which is also a well-known embedded OS, uses this
license.
If we are thinking about amending an existing license, we could also try
to ease the
Dear RIOTers,
I just found the eCos license: [1]
http://ecos.sourceware.org/license-overview.html
It's basically a modified version of the GPL with linker exception. The
interesting point: it is officially recognised as a GPL-compatible Free
Software License:
Hi Oleg,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Oleg Hahm wrote:
I thought that we already decided to exclude exotic licenses.
Yes. GPL + Linker Exception is not exotic.
but the name (or license branding). We had this discussion before.
Rather unknown licenses need to be explained. Using eCos license
I'd be willing to bet that GNU Classpath is one of the oldest projects
licensed under the GPL with a linking exception.
Classpath is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License
with the following clarification and special exception.
Linking this library statically or
Hi Oleg,
I thought that we already decided to exclude exotic licenses.
With respect to this specific license:
(1) We cannot use the license because the license text is specific to
eCos (e.g., eCos is distributed [...]).
(2) We should not use the license because it is not approved by
On 12/16/2014 06:39 PM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
arguably written less code in my free time). On the other hand, free software
also means that this software might be used for any purpose - even to harm or
kill people. LGPL (or any other discussed license) does not prevent this. Are
you feeling
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
BSD changes the whole picture. It makes me feel exploited if I contribute a
lot of ressources building free roads and others just invest a little but
profit from the combination of all roads (even charging me) instead of
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 01:06:24PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
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
Hey,
On 12/18/2014 02:09 PM, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:
Please explain without analogies and use concrete examples instead.
We release RIOT under BSD. Company X takes the BSD'ed code and sells
some infrastructure around that, but basically, they sell commercially
supported RIOT under a non-free
Hey,
On 12/18/2014 02:10 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
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:35:58PM +0100, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
On 12/18/2014 02:10 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
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
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 aks...@dspworks.in a écrit :
This (migrating to a BSD license) should be
Am Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:44:57 +0100
schrieb Oleg Hahm oliver.h...@inria.fr:
Hey Kaspar!
If RIOT is BSD'ed, for *me* personally time spent on it is not fun
time I like to in my unpaid spare time anymore, it becomes work
that is also fun. Work others can (and will) sell under their terms.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, Johann Fischer wrote:
If RIOT is BSD'ed, for *me* personally time spent on it is not fun
time I like to in my unpaid spare time anymore, it becomes work
that is also fun. Work others can (and will) sell under their terms.
I totally don't get this point. How do
Hi,
On 12/16/2014 12:44 PM, Oleg Hahm wrote:
If RIOT is BSD'ed, for *me* personally time spent on it is not fun time I
like to in my unpaid spare time anymore, it becomes work that is also fun.
Work others can (and will) sell under their terms.
I totally don't get this point. How do more
Hi Kaspar,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Kaspar Schleiser kas...@schleiser.de
wrote:
As the man earning a shit load of money from one of these evil companies,
using a proprietary smart phone, and buying Facebook goggles, working on
RIOT for me is a very expensive hobby.
I'm not sure I
Hey Kaspar!
IMHO this is not a oooh how nice, someone found a way to make money out of
this! good for them! situation. It has the possiblity to become a Oh nice.
Those contributers write code we can sell and they don't want anything in
return situation.
I think it is both. And I understand
Hi Ludwig!
So in that case, you can't even (legally) sell a product based on RIOT
without it (and you) being mentioned.
Referring to a discussion I had with Hauke over lunch: would have RIOT to be
mentioned only in the code or on the sold product (let's say an Internet
connected toy dinosaur)?
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:42:37PM +0100, Oleg Hahm wrote:
So in that case, you can't even (legally) sell a product based on RIOT
without it (and you) being mentioned.
Referring to a discussion I had with Hauke over lunch: would have RIOT to be
mentioned only in the code or on the
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
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
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
Hi Johann,
Le 12 déc. 2014 00:48, Johann Fischer johann_fisc...@posteo.de a écrit :
Can you explain exactly what you expect of licence change? That more
hardware
will be supported? That RIOT will be more spread?
The motivation for a more permissive license now is that the RIOT community
has
Hi Olaf,
if both LGPL and other considered licenses are OK for you, then switch to
RIOT right now ;)
What is holding you back, more precisely? I would be interesting to know
about it, it might bring some arguments to this debate.
Best,
Emmanuel
Le 11 déc. 2014 18:28, Olaf Bergmann
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:31:00 +0100
Emmanuel Baccelli emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr wrote:
I agree with you: we need another Linux and not another Contiki. But
two questions:
(1) can we realistically mimic the Linux story and stay with LGPL?
(2) why would RIOT necessarily become another Contiki if
Emmanuel Baccelli emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr writes:
Hi Carsten,
on the topic of rewriting history ;) it would be interesting to know
if you have an estimation of the proportion of RIOT code your people
would have developed that would have been contributed back to the
master branch, over
Hi everyone,
this is a gentle reminder to input your opinions on this thread before
Wednesday night (i.e., tomorrow).
Thanks,
Emmanuel
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On 09 Dec 2014, at 00:09, Adam Hunt voxa...@gmail.com wrote:
allow a potential license
Hey,
On 12/09/2014 12:43 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
allow a potential license change to be put off
As long as relicensing hasn’t happened, RIOT stays in suspended animation for
those of us who care about actual pickup in products. Waiting some more (a
license change has been discussed for
Hi Adam,
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Adam Hunt wrote:
There's another option on the table that would allow a potential
license change to be put off for some time while still being able to
do it with minimal headache down the road. Any license change is
obviously going to require all the past
Hello,
I'm not absolutely against licence switch but... I actually feel uneasy
about about this kind of demands...
If I understand right, some corporations which have probably contributed
nothing to the project just barges in and said : if you want us to use
your work, you have to let us
Hi Kevin,
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014, ROUSSEL Kévin wrote:
I'm not absolutely against licence switch but... I actually feel
uneasy about about this kind of demands...
If I understand right, some corporations which have probably
contributed nothing to the project just barges in and said : if you
Am Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:36:32 +0100
schrieb Emmanuel Baccelli emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr:
this is a gentle reminder to input your opinions on this thread before
Wednesday night (i.e., tomorrow).
You cannot use any of my contributions under any BSD license, because I don't
think that it is a
Sorry Adam, I don't know how your name got intermixed into my answer.
I had no intention to misquote you, and I like your previous letter very much.
--
“My head was aching, and I had a singular feeling—altogether new
to me—that some one else was trying to get alice’s configuration”
—
I entirely understand where Johann is coming from. My view are very
similar; companies all over the world beat up on Linux in the early days
because of the GPL but all these years later things have died down and
multibillion dollar transnational corporations are not only still
contributing to the
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 emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr
wrote:
Dear RIOTers,
we have been receiving an increasing amount of negative feedback from
49 matches
Mail list logo
