argh - license madness - lets add some complexity fe. tri-licensed like jruby :) https://github.com/jruby/jruby/blob/master/COPYING let riot stay as independet and open as possible please - thats my only concern. i see the websites of iot-ubuntu, iot-"mbed'a likes, iot-eclipse, and for my personal view its looks like some "business strategy" that has less and less todo with technical or "co-development" reasons. Jan
> Emmanuel Baccelli <emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr> hat am 25. Februar 2015 um > 11:39 geschrieben: > > Hi everyone, > > GPL with linking exception seems relevant in this discussion -- especially > since eCOS, which is also a well-known embedded OS, uses this license. > > As a side note, but highly related: at Embedded World yesterday, we met with > the Eclipse Foundation [1] guys. > RIOT is now officially invited to become an Eclipse project. > > There are a number of advantages to be under the Eclipse umbrella: they > provide legal services, and the IoT part of this umbrella [2] is actively > helping communities such as RIOT to grow organically: in particular they > promise promotion, and matchmaking with other FOSS communities and relevant > industrial partners. > > There are however strings attached: Eclipse has good reputation as far as I > can tell, but nevertheless some of our independence is lost if we join, and we > have to use the Eclipse Public License [3]. > > In any case, the Eclipse Foundation guys were stressing that CLAs [4] are > crucial, whatever we do, whether we join Eclipse Foundation or not. > > Best, > > Emmanuel > > > [1] https://eclipse.org/org/foundation/ > [2] http://iot.eclipse.org > [3] https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#CPLEPL > [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Adam Hunt <voxa...@gmail.com > <mailto:voxa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > dynamically with other modules is > > > > > > > > > > > > > making a combined work based on this > > > > > > > > > > > > > library. Thus, the terms and > > > > > > > > > > > > > conditions of the GNU General Public > > > > > > > > > > > > > License cover the whole combination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a special exception, the copyright > > > > > > > > > > > > > holders of this library give you > > > > > > > > > > > > > permission to link this library with > > > > > > > > > > > > > independent modules to produce an > > > > > > > > > > > > > executable, regardless of the license > > > > > > > > > > > > > terms of these independent modules, > > > > > > > > > > > > > and to copy and distribute the > > > > > > > > > > > > > resulting executable under terms of > > > > > > > > > > > > > your choice, provided that you also > > > > > > > > > > > > > meet, for each linked independent > > > > > > > > > > > > > module, the terms and conditions of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the license of that module. An > > > > > > > > > > > > > independent module is a module which > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not derived from or based on this > > > > > > > > > > > > > library. If you modify this library, > > > > > > > > > > > > > you may extend this exception to your > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of the library, but you are > > > > > > > > > > > > > not obliged to do so. If you do not > > > > > > > > > > > > > wish to do so, delete this exception > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement from your version. > > > [ 1 <https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html> ] > > > > > > > --adam > > > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html > > > > On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 5:08:12 PM Oleg Hahm < oliver.h...@inria.fr > > <mailto:oliver.h...@inria.fr> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Matthias! > > > > > > > but the name (or license branding). We had this discussion before. > > > > Rather unknown licenses need to be explained. Using eCos license is > > > > similar to use a RIOT license. > > > > > > Yes, I agree, but at least it's listed (approved?) by FSF. Another > > > option (see > > > citation from the OSI list from my previous mail) we could just state > > > GPL as a > > > license and point to the exception for commercial users. I think the > > > text on > > > the eCos page is pretty comprehensible. > > > > > > The Wikipedia is even claiming that the perception "that without > > > applying the > > > linking exception, code linked with GPL code may only be done using a > > > GPL-compatible license" is "unsupported by any legal precedent or > > > citation". > > > > > > > I'm just wondering if eCos is the first license with the introduced > > > > exception -- I will not research on this ;). > > > > > > I don't think so, but it's the only listed license from FSF that > > > specifies the > > > linking exception. > > > > > > > I never said it's impossible. In this type of discussion you will > > > > always find counterexamples. I just wanted to point out that I see > > > > it as > > > > an advantage to use an OSI approved license. > > > > > > I agree, but if the choice is between a FSF approved license (as I > > > understand > > > eCos License is) that matches our needs and a less matching OSI > > > approved > > > license, I'm willing to bite this bullet. > > > > > > > > At least eCos, ERIKA and ChibiOS are very similar to RIOT from a > > > > > software architecture point of view (OS for embedded hardware). > > > > > > > > > No comment ;). > > > > > > For clarification: I was referring to the fact that these systems > > > have a > > > similar use case as RIOT, not that there concept or feature set is > > > similar to > > > RIOT. > > > > > > > > Long story short: I see your concerns, but for me GPL + Linking > > > > > Exception is a common license model that works well for many > > > > > well-known and mature projects. Personally, I would think that > > > > > GPL + > > > > > Linking Exception matches our needs far better than LGPL. > > > > > > > > > Can you explain in one our two sentences why? Because it's more > > > > inclusive? > > > > > > Again taken from the Wikipedia article: "the LGPL formulates more > > > requirements > > > to the linking exception: you must allow modification of the portions > > > of the > > > library you use and reverse engineering (of your program and the > > > library) for > > > debugging such modifications." > > > > > > > > As I see it now, we won't come to any conclusion for or against > > > > > switching to a non-copyleft license that satisfies everyone, > > > > > because > > > > > the goals and visions where to go with RIOT are too different. > > > > > > > > > At least we don't get new basic insights with this thread. > > > > > > Which is too bad. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Oleg > > > -- > > > The problem with TCPIP jokes is that when I tell them, all I want is > > > an ACK but > > > usually get FINs and RSTs > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devel mailing list > > > devel@riot-os.org <mailto:devel@riot-os.org> > > > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > <http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list > > devel@riot-os.org <mailto: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
