From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12791 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 22:29:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 12781 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 22:29:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail168c2.megamailservers.com (HELO mail168c2.megamailservers.com) (69.49.111.168) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:28:51 +0000 X-Authenticated-User: jiri.gaisler.com Received: from [192.168.0.22] (2-1-11-18a.va.gbg.bostream.se [82.182.120.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail168c2.megamailservers.com (8.13.6.20060614/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m33MSkCg027848; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:28:48 -0400 Message-Id: <200804032228.m33MSkCg027848@mail168c2.megamailservers.com> Message-ID: <47F55A47.7070602@gaisler.com> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:40:00 -0000 From: Jiri Gaisler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: neundorf@kde.org CC: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org References: <20080403112347.68e481c9@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> <200804030937.m339bj00013603@mail168c2.megamailservers.com> <200804032050.20913.neundorf@kde.org> In-Reply-To: <200804032050.20913.neundorf@kde.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos? X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 Using LGPL does not require you ship your firmware as object files and link later. My understanding of LGPL is that you can ship proprietary core linked with LGPL code, without having to open-source the proprietary code. It is only the modifications of the LGPL code you must publish, which is exactly what we are after. Jiri. Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> I completely agree with Markus. We are hesitant to contribute our >> leon2/3 port and drivers because we do not want to have closed-source >> distributions (e.g. eCos Pro) using our code without contributing >> back fixes or improvements. The ideal solution would be to license > > So GPL or LGPL would be ok for you ? > >> the eCos code in LGPL. This would allow mixing proprietary applications >> with the kernel, while force any improvements or bug fixes to be >> published. > > Well, and it would enforce that company ship their firmware as object files or > relinkable static libraries, so that this together with the LGPL part (eCos > then) could be relinked to a working firmware image. > I think that's not a very practical solution. > > Alex > > > -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss