Re: [ECOS] ecos licensing

["Christopher Cordahi" <christopher.cordahi@gmail.com>]

On 09/08/06, Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> wrote:
> Christopher Cordahi wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This might be a silly question, but what is the difference between the
> > ecos license (GPL with a special exception) and the LGPL?
>
> It's similar in principle. But binary forms of eCos code are not always
> delivered as a "library". Take RedBoot for example.

Reading the LGPL license more carefully, I see that although they redefine
that a library is a collection of code, they still cling to the idea
that it be a
library which is not completely standalone.  But then I don't understand how
OpenOffice.org can use it for a license, but that's way off topic.

> Then there's ambiguity about the legal status of inline code and macros,
> which eCos uses extensively.

Do you mean that the LGPL would restrict the use of inline code and macros
available in eCos headers by proprietary code.  Their use by eCos shouldn't
be a problem since it is GPL compatible.

> Altogether that leads to the current license wording.

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand.

Although the essence of the LGPL is commonly understood, the wording
of the LGPL seems to introduce additional requirements producing a legal
grey zone.

The eCos special exception is much clearer, downside is one
more license to manage.

-- 
Chris

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