From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15041 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2007 13:01:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 15030 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2007 13:01:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from londo.lunn.ch (HELO londo.lunn.ch) (80.238.139.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:01:50 +0000 Received: from lunn by londo.lunn.ch with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1IFrLj-0000Ff-00; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:01:19 +0200 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:01:00 -0000 From: Andrew Lunn To: Klaas Gadeyne Cc: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org Message-ID: <20070731130119.GH27886@lunn.ch> Mail-Followup-To: Klaas Gadeyne , ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org References: <97993dc40707300636w78cc9e7ct1d370872e9b11a0c@mail.gmail.com> <2a3305fe0707301026l128193f5ib904b30c5c7081b9@mail.gmail.com> <97993dc40707310034x25be6389t743929d93f368152@mail.gmail.com> <20070731093508.GE27886@lunn.ch> <20070731100040.GF27886@lunn.ch> <20070731121216.GG27886@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Project ideas for graduate course X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 > I'm not sure (again :-) what you mean by "customer": > - a customer of FMTC that wants to sell a (closed source) product > based on eCos + EML pays a licence fee to FMTC, obtains a LGPL > version of EML and can create a closed source product, right? If > they want, they can modify the EML code [Let's call this customer > CustomerFoo] > > Note: the LGPL version is exactly the same codebase, only provided a > with a different license. That code is "in the open" anyway with a > GPL license, so why would we object against CustomerFoo > redistributing the code. Well, anybody can then pick up the LGPL version and avoid paying for it! The GPL version then becomes redundant. So you might as well distribute the LGPL version and remove the GPL version. > - a customer of CustomerFoo buys a closed source product. That's it. Nope. Not quite. They buy the closed source produced, but also get a copy of the sources to the open source parts. eg eCos and the LGPL EtherCAT source. Plus, since you use the LGPL, you should supply the customer with the object code files for the closes source parts. The thing about the LGPL is that you are allowed to modify the LGPL code and relink it with the none LGPL parts you got in object code form to rebuild the application. This way, you can bug fix and extend the LGPL parts. Also, the customer is allowed to use eCos and the LGPL EtherCAT themselves, since it is open source. They can distribute it, hack it, do what they want under the GPL+exception and LGPL. However this is where we might run into problems. the GPL(+exception) and LGPL is transferable. The customer has just as many rights as the distributor. However i suspect that the second license for the EtherCAT is none transferable. >> The GPL code is also licensed under another license at the same time >> as being GPL. This i don't understand. How can it be GPL and something >> else at the same time. This is where i would want copyright lawyers to >> take a close look. > > As I said, IANAL either :-), the exact "wording" from the license > comes from lawyers@beckhoff. However, as I understand it (and that > was the spirit of the license), you can consider it exactly the same > mechanism as above where you state that eCos is licensed under GPL > _plus_ exception. EML is GPL (or LGPL) + exception too, and the > exception says that derived code should be compliant with the EtherCAT > standard (in case you distribute/sell it, that is). So you should > consider the 2 licences as being complementary, not being something > else. Well the eCos GPL+exception gives the user more rights. This is well accepted in the community. The exception for the EtherCAT i think removes rights. I think it removes the right to redistribute and the right to redistribute is the core of the (L)GPL licenses. That is one point i would want a copyright lawyer to look at if i were considering using EtherCAT sources. Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss