From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21736 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 15:09:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21726 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 15:09:48 -0000 Message-ID: <4059BBBB.6080809@eCosCentric.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:09:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Lunn Cc: eCos Maintainers Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: RE : [ECOS] Licence consideratios. References: <20040316145729.GB31390@lunn.ch> <000301c40b6b$b0d064b0$7407a8c0@figuier> <20040316153617.GC31390@lunn.ch> <4059BB7E.9020100@eCosCentric.com> In-Reply-To: <4059BB7E.9020100@eCosCentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 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