Hi Kaspar, On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> Let me correct myself. > > There are no technical reasons against using LGPLed RIOT to develop > proprietary applications. > it depends on how you define "technical reasons". Yes, it is not impossible to create separate object files. But you maybe don't want to do this for technical optimization (see for example http://www.htsoft.com/news/070309_Whitepaper-OmniscientCodeGeneration_FINAL.pdf). > 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. > I agree with Oleg's comment on this. And btw, if a compiler can "be changed trivially" depends on details I suppose. > > 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. > Both systems address different types of devices. > > From a professional point of view, I would not base strategic > > decisions on the discussed PR/idea. > What profession would that be? > Having an almost complete picture of the landscape. Cheers matthias -- Matthias Waehlisch . Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST . Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany .. mailto:waehli...@ieee.org .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl :. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
