From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16422 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2008 09:13:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 16412 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2008 09:13:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail176c2.megamailservers.com (HELO mail176c2.megamailservers.com) (69.49.111.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:12:58 +0000 X-Authenticated-User: jiri.gaisler.com Received: from [192.168.0.23] (c-d2c9e253.93-16-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [83.226.201.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail176c2.megamailservers.com (8.13.6.20060614/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m349CrYq028389; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:12:55 -0400 Message-Id: <200804040912.m349CrYq028389@mail176c2.megamailservers.com> Message-ID: <47F5F130.2030800@gaisler.com> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:36:00 -0000 From: Jiri Gaisler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 SeaMonkey/1.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Schaber 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> <200804032228.m33MSkCg027848@mail168c2.megamailservers.com> <20080404104457.35553e0a@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> In-Reply-To: <20080404104457.35553e0a@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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/msg00065.txt.bz2 This is getting interesting. I understand the difference between LGPL and GPL better now, and I have found the eCos lining exception part in the license: // As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use macros // or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it // with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not // by itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public // License. However the source code for this file must still be made available // in accordance with section (3) of the GNU General Public License. Does this mean that if we contribute some files to eCos under this license and they end up in eCos Pro, any modifications to them made by eCosCentric would have to be published and could be merged back to the open version of eCos. The last sentence seems to indicate this, I just want be sure. I have looked at the files in eCos Pro, and majority of it has the GPL license with the linking exception. Is there anything that would prevent me from merging updated files from eCos Pro back to the open CVS version? Jiri. Markus Schaber wrote: > Hi, Jiri, > > Jiri Gaisler wrote: > >> 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. > > Please read the LGPL carefully. > > You stumbled over one of the differences between the LGPL and the "GPL > with linking exception", as used by eCos or the GCC run time library, > AFAIR. > > > Regards, > Markus > -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss