Hey Matthias,
On 02/19/15 23:47, Matthias Waehlisch wrote:
As you pointed out in your email, there are scenarios where the
approach will not help due to technical reasons (and using a weird
compiler might have technical reasons as well). You may consider these
as irrelevant. But there is one aspect for sure in the IoT, the IoT is
much more heterogenous compared to the current Internet. This is a
crucial difference making the approach less suitable compared to
developing for Linux, for example.
Interesting how technical reasons are the main point you've read out my
email.
Let me correct myself.
There are no technical reasons against using LGPLed RIOT to develop
proprietary applications.
Using a "weird compiler" that cannot output the required object files
because it is closed source and proprietary is purely political. That
compiler could be changed trivially *if it would be open source* or the
vendor was inclined to do so. This doesn't count as technical reason.
For me the sentence "RIOT allows LGPL + proprietary source code at the
same level of comfort compared to Linux" sounds like a cheap marketing
slogan making clear that the persons are not aware of the IoT diversity.
Saying otherwise makes clear that the persons are not aware of the
troubles embedded linux companies go through when developing proprietary
devices using (L)GPLed linux + libraries.
From a professional point of view, I would not base strategic
decisions on the discussed PR/idea.
What profession would that be?
LGPL *is* putting restrictions on how and where the code is used.
That's the whole idea of a copyleft license.
Kaspar
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
