[ECOS] PPP status?

[ECOS] PPP status?

[Grant Edwards]

A while back, I seem to recall that somebody was porting some
Linux (GPL'd) PPP protocol code to eCos.  Has anybody seen any
results from that effort?

-- 
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Bart Veer]

>>>>> "Gustav" writes:

    >> > Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or
    >> > require eCos to be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos
    >> > can not be considered to be legal.
    >> 
    >> IANAL, but why couldn't GPL'd source code be ported to eCos
    >> without violating the license? The GPL doesn't prohibit
    >> modifications, it only controls how those modifications are
    >> distributed. Porting GPL'd code to eCos then distributing it
    >> seperately from eCos as source code shouldn't be a problem,
    >> should it?

    Gustav> The GPL'd code "infects" the non-GPL'd code as soon as
    Gustav> it's linked to it. That is very hard to avoid in an
    Gustav> embedded system such as eCos.

    Gustav> There is one exception and that is the GPL lib license
    Gustav> which is used for libc which allows you to link the lib to
    Gustav> another code without infecting. But that is not the case
    Gustav> here.

IANAL either, but hopefully I can clear up some of the confusion here.

It is not entirely correct that use of GPL'd code "infects" all
non-GPL'd code it is linked with, requiring all such code to be GPL'd
as well. As an example consider Gnome. A typical gnome application
will be GPL'd. However it will be linked with X11 libraries which are
not GPL'd, instead they are under a BSD-style license. This is
perfectly legal, because the relevant license is GPL-compatible: the
X11 code is freely available and anybody can modify it as desired.

Now consider a typical embedded application. In a simple case this
involves linking together some application code, some eCos code, and
the compiler support library libgcc. libgcc is licensed under the GPL
plus an exception, which means that for all practical purposes anybody
can just use libgcc without worrying about licensing issues. eCos is
now licensed under GPL plus a different exception. Neither eCos nor
libgcc "infect" the application code, so that code can be kept
proprietary/secret if desired.

Next suppose an embedded developer also wants to use an additional
library, e.g. PPP code or Kaffe, that is only available under vanilla
GPL with no exceptions. There are now four bits of code in the system:
application, PPP, eCos and libgcc. Both eCos and libgcc are under a
license that is GPL-compatible, so there is no conflict there. The
application code must also be released under a GPL-compatible license.
The basic requirement is that any end user must be able to examine and
modify all code that goes into the final executable, so that bugs can
be fixed and functionality can be improved. Usually the simplest way
to achieve this is to release the application code under the GPL as
well, so in this scenario "infection" does occur. It would also be
possible to e.g. release the application code under a BSD license or
make it public domain.

The RHEPL had been ruled incompatible with the GPL. Therefore it was
impossible to combine eCos code with GPL'd code and distribute the
resulting application. The eCos license change makes it possible to
use GPL'd code if desired, for those application developers willing to
release their own code. This gives developers more choice than before.

However it is accepted that most embedded application developers will
want to keep much of their own code proprietary. If we were to
incorporate vanilla GPL code into the main eCos repository, there
would be a real risk that some application developers would
accidentally use that code without understanding the implications of
what they were doing. Keeping such code out of the repository greatly
reduces the risk of such accidents: instead of just adding another
package via the config tool or the ecosconfig command line, they would
have to download a separate file, unpack it, figure out how to build
it, link it with the application as a separate library, etc. Mistakes
may still happen, but cannot be blamed on eCos and its configuration
technology.

There are other and less stringent approaches, e.g. having the tools
display a big warning and require user confirmation when a GPL'd
package is added to the configuration. The code for that does not
exist yet, so IMO a ban on GPL'd code in the repository is the right
thing for now.

Bart

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Gustav Kälvesten]

> You can ship an embedded system with GPL'd code.  You just have
> to make source code available for a small fee.

Yes, definitely. But you should be aware of that _all_ code have to be
distributed. I.e. your own code as well. In some companies it can be a very
hard thing to get acceptance from the management that you should distribute
all your hard work and secret algorithms for free to anyone who requests
it...

- Gustav

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Grant Edwards]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:35:17PM +0200, Gustav Kälvesten wrote:
> 
> > > Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or 
> > require eCos to
> > > be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be 
> > considered to be
> > > legal.
> > 
> > IANAL, but why couldn't GPL'd source code be ported to eCos
> > without violating the license?  The GPL doesn't prohibit
> > modifications, it only controls how those modifications are
> > distributed.  Porting GPL'd code to eCos then distributing it
> > seperately from eCos as source code shouldn't be a problem,
> > should it?
> 
> The GPL'd code "infects" the non-GPL'd code as soon as it's linked
> to it.
>
> That is very hard to avoid in an embedded system such as eCos.

You can ship an embedded system with GPL'd code.  You just have
to make source code available for a small fee.

> > Once you start shipping binaries, then things get complicated...
> 
> Well, if you will keep the product on your desk I guess no one will care :)

Not a very useful distinction, I know...

-- 
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Gary Thomas]

On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 08:40, Gustav Kälvesten wrote:
> Hi Gary,
> 
> > > Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or 
> > require eCos to
> > > be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be 
> > considered to be
> > > legal. 
> > 
> > This is no longer such a concern.  As of version 2.0, eCos is now 
> > licensed by the GPL (with exception).  
> > 
> > See the latest announcements and the current anonymous CVS repository.
> 
> I don't see how that changes the situation? The GPL'd code from the outside
> still has the GPL license (without RedHat's exception).
> 
> If eCos was GPL'd without your exception it would infect the application
> developers code with GPL. But with the exception you don't but it still
> shouldn't be possible to incorporate pure GPL'd code.

IANAL either, but here's how I understand it:

While pure GPL code (with no exception) can't be incorporated into the
eCos tree (i.e. could not be distributed directly with eCos), it is now
possible to create an eCos based system with such components.  So if 
someone wanted to make a PPP stack for eCos, based on Linux (GPL) code,
it would be possible, and legal, but it would have to be kept as a 
separately distributed entity.  Any system using these components would 
have to be distributed to end users under the pure GPL and no exception 
would be possible (i.e. any additions to the eCos kernel, as well as the
application code itself, etc, would have to be distributed under the
terms of the GPL).

Under the previous (RHEPL) license, this would have not been allowed.


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Gustav Kälvesten]

Hi Gary,

> > Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or 
> require eCos to
> > be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be 
> considered to be
> > legal. 
> 
> This is no longer such a concern.  As of version 2.0, eCos is now 
> licensed by the GPL (with exception).  
> 
> See the latest announcements and the current anonymous CVS repository.

I don't see how that changes the situation? The GPL'd code from the outside
still has the GPL license (without RedHat's exception).

If eCos was GPL'd without your exception it would infect the application
developers code with GPL. But with the exception you don't but it still
shouldn't be possible to incorporate pure GPL'd code.

- Gustav

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Gustav Kälvesten]

> > Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or 
> require eCos to
> > be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be 
> considered to be
> > legal.
> 
> IANAL, but why couldn't GPL'd source code be ported to eCos
> without violating the license?  The GPL doesn't prohibit
> modifications, it only controls how those modifications are
> distributed.  Porting GPL'd code to eCos then distributing it
> seperately from eCos as source code shouldn't be a problem,
> should it?

The GPL'd code "infects" the non-GPL'd code as soon as it's linked
to it. That is very hard to avoid in an embedded system such as eCos.

There is one exception and that is the GPL lib license which is used for
libc which allows you to link the lib to another code without infecting. But
that is not the case here.

> Once you start shipping binaries, then things get complicated...

Well, if you will keep the product on your desk I guess no one will care :)

- Gustav

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Gary Thomas]

On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 08:23, Gustav Kälvesten wrote:
> > A while back, I seem to recall that somebody was porting some
> > Linux (GPL'd) PPP protocol code to eCos.  Has anybody seen any
> > results from that effort?
> 
> Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or require eCos to
> be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be considered to be
> legal. 

This is no longer such a concern.  As of version 2.0, eCos is now 
licensed by the GPL (with exception).  

See the latest announcements and the current anonymous CVS repository.


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Grant Edwards]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:23:53PM +0200, Gustav Kälvesten wrote:

> > A while back, I seem to recall that somebody was porting some
> > Linux (GPL'd) PPP protocol code to eCos.  Has anybody seen any
> > results from that effort?
> 
> Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or require eCos to
> be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be considered to be
> legal.

IANAL, but why couldn't GPL'd source code be ported to eCos
without violating the license?  The GPL doesn't prohibit
modifications, it only controls how those modifications are
distributed.  Porting GPL'd code to eCos then distributing it
seperately from eCos as source code shouldn't be a problem,
should it?

Once you start shipping binaries, then things get complicated...

-- 
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss

RE: [ECOS] PPP status?

[Gustav Kälvesten]

> A while back, I seem to recall that somebody was porting some
> Linux (GPL'd) PPP protocol code to eCos.  Has anybody seen any
> results from that effort?

Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or require eCos to
be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be considered to be
legal. 

- Gustav

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss