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

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>]

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