Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > RTEMS is not pure-GPL -- it does allow binary redistribution.
>
> So does "pure GPL", as long as you make the sources available. If you
> mean that you can redistribute (potentially modified) RTEMS binaries
> without providing the source code, then you've effectively got a
> {BSD,MIT,Apache} license (except for a few details about attributions
> and the naming of derivative software), and you might as well make the
> change in name as well as in function.
Let me just quote the exception. We are focused on the impact of
the RTEMS license on the end user embedded application.
"As a special exception, including RTEMS header files in a file,
instantiating RTEMS generics or templates, or linking other files
with RTEMS objects to produce an executable application, does not
by itself cause the resulting executable application to be covered
by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not
however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be
covered by the GNU Public License."
This exception is similar to that used by libgcc and gnat.
> DES
> --
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
