Re: [ECOS] Re: RE : [ECOS] Licence consideratios.

Re: [ECOS] Re: RE : [ECOS] Licence consideratios.

[Jonathan Larmour]

This is the license in question. http://www.rtems.com/license/LICENSE

IANAL of course, but I believe it is incompatible: "[...] linking other 
files with RTEMS objects to produce an executable application, does not
by itself cause the resulting executable application to be covered
by the GNU General Public License."

This will be linked with non-RTEMS objects. Therefore the full GPL would 
apply, therefore it is not acceptable, sorry. We can put it up in our 
contributions section, but not include it in the main source base.

Jifl

Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>In fact, licence terms were not included into the files I downloaded.
>>I have contacted the original contributor that said to me the package
>>was released under "RTEMs licence".
>>Regarding the name of four licences, I assumed it was "Primary licence".
>>
>>Then I have included RTEMs "Primary licence" terms into files and
>>submited those files to the original contributor for agreement.
>>He gave me this agreement.
>>
>>But I can't switch to eCos licence as, I think, all contributors should
>>give their agreement.
> 
> 
> True. 
> 
> 
>>Is this a problem to include files into eCos distribution?
> 
> 
> Now we know which license we are talking about, we can read it and see
> if its compatible. 
> 
>    Andrew
> 


-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
 >>>>> Visit us in booth 2527 at the Embedded Systems Conference 2004 <<<<<
March 30 - April 1, San Francisco http://www.esconline.com/electronicaUSA/
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Re: RE : [ECOS] Licence consideratios.

[Jonathan Larmour]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> This is the license in question. http://www.rtems.com/license/LICENSE
> 
> IANAL of course, but I believe it is incompatible: "[...] linking other 
> files with RTEMS objects to produce an executable application, does not
> by itself cause the resulting executable application to be covered
> by the GNU General Public License."
> 
> This will be linked with non-RTEMS objects. Therefore the full GPL would 
> apply, therefore it is not acceptable, sorry. We can put it up in our 
> contributions section, but not include it in the main source base.

Sorry, I didn't finish like intended.... I just want to check, do people 
agree with my interpretation?

Jifl

> Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
>>> In fact, licence terms were not included into the files I downloaded.
>>> I have contacted the original contributor that said to me the package
>>> was released under "RTEMs licence".
>>> Regarding the name of four licences, I assumed it was "Primary licence".
>>>
>>> Then I have included RTEMs "Primary licence" terms into files and
>>> submited those files to the original contributor for agreement.
>>> He gave me this agreement.
>>>
>>> But I can't switch to eCos licence as, I think, all contributors should
>>> give their agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> Is this a problem to include files into eCos distribution?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now we know which license we are talking about, we can read it and see
>> if its compatible.
>>    Andrew
>>
> 
> 


-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
 >>>>> Visit us in booth 2527 at the Embedded Systems Conference 2004 <<<<<
March 30 - April 1, San Francisco http://www.esconline.com/electronicaUSA/
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Re: RE : [ECOS] Licence consideratios.

[Jonathan Larmour]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> This is the license in question. http://www.rtems.com/license/LICENSE
> 
> IANAL of course, but I believe it is incompatible: 

Just saying "Incompatible" was imprecise. I meant incompatible with 
contributing back. It's usable but only under the full GPL.

>"[...] linking other 
> files with RTEMS objects to produce an executable application, does not
> by itself cause the resulting executable application to be covered
> by the GNU General Public License."
> 
> This will be linked with non-RTEMS objects. Therefore the full GPL would 
> apply, therefore it is not acceptable, sorry. We can put it up in our 
> contributions section, but not include it in the main source base.

No comments so I'll reply on ecos-discuss.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
 >>>>> Visit us in booth 2527 at the Embedded Systems Conference 2004 <<<<<
March 30 - April 1, San Francisco http://www.esconline.com/electronicaUSA/
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: [ECOS] Re: RE : [ECOS] Licence consideratios.

[Jonathan Larmour]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> This is the license in question. http://www.rtems.com/license/LICENSE
> 
> IANAL of course, but I believe it is incompatible: "[...] linking other 
> files with RTEMS objects to produce an executable application, does not
> by itself cause the resulting executable application to be covered
> by the GNU General Public License."
> 
> This will be linked with non-RTEMS objects. Therefore the full GPL would 
> apply, therefore it is not acceptable, sorry. We can put it up in our 
> contributions section, but not include it in the main source base.

Okay, I'm being noisy here, but now on rereading/rethinking, I think I'm 
wrong on the above reasoning.

However there is still an issue.... right now we allow any works based on 
eCos to be distributed with the GPL exception clause. This permits people 
to distribute unlinked or partially linked objects, e.g. libtarget.a etc. 
with no further restrictions than if they distributed other binaries.

The RTEMS license only permits executable applications to be distributed 
with the exception, so if someone distributes libtarget.a, then it becomes 
fully GPL'd, and so their whole application would become GPL'd. This is an 
undesirable new restriction.

So yes there is still a problem and I'll send that to ecos-discuss.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
 >>>>> Visit us in booth 2527 at the Embedded Systems Conference 2004 <<<<<
March 30 - April 1, San Francisco http://www.esconline.com/electronicaUSA/
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine