From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1894 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2007 12:36:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 1886 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2007 12:36:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from uu212-190-204-68.unknown.uunet.be (HELO outsider.wtcm.be) (212.190.204.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:36:30 +0000 Received: from server04.site04.wtcm.be (server04.site04.wtcm.be [192.168.64.1]) by outsider.wtcm.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67D2298026; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:39:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ampere.labo01.fmtc.be (gatefmtc.site04.wtcm.be [192.168.78.3]) by server04.site04.wtcm.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279D2E2CF2; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:36:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:36:00 -0000 From: Klaas Gadeyne To: Andrew Lunn Cc: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070731121216.GG27886@lunn.ch> Message-ID: 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; format=flowed 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/msg00226.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> IANAL, but i would want to take a close look at the license agreement >>> before using this software. >> >> Me neither, but put in human words, the license agreement is there to >> ensure 'derived software' (as defined in GPL) stays compatible with >> the (open) EtherCAT standard and assures you won't suffer from patent >> claims in case it does. >> >>> Also, it is GPL, which is probably not what you want. >> >> Who do you mean with 'you'? - IIRC the OP was asking for ideas for projects >> to be conducted by >> graduate students, so I don't see why they would object agains the GPL. >> - We (FMTC) wrote and open sourced the code >> - As stated on the website, interested companies wishing to use this >> for closed products can obtain a LGPL version against a license fee. > > I mean "you" as in anybody wishing to use eCos and EtherCat. The > problem is that it forces the application to be GPL. Most uses of eCos > are in commercial products. Having eCos use "GPL+exception" is > O.K. because it does not force the application to be > GPL+exception. That is what the exception is for. The application, > which contains all the IP, can remain closed. However once you make > use of this GPL code, your application becomes GPL and you have to > give the sources away. Most people using eCos would not like this. > How many open source eCos applications do you know of? > > Close source application then need to use the LGPL version. However, > this i don't understand. Since it is LGPL, what is to stop a customer > buying the LGPL version and then distribute the sources under LGPL? It > seems like to me, if you are selling a version for closed source > applications you would use a closed source license to stop it being > redistributed. 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. - a customer of CustomerFoo buys a closed source product. That's it. > 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. Klaas -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss