* Re: eCos license questions
2005-07-25 20:52 eCos license questions Linda Wang
@ 2005-07-28 12:06 ` Jonathan Larmour
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2005-07-28 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linda Wang; +Cc: ecos-maintainers
Linda Wang wrote:
> Dear eCos Maintainers,
>
> We're researching the possibility of using eCos in one of
> our products, but we have some questions regarding the
> license.
>
> Th eCos License Overview says that "the license does not
> require users to release the source code of any
> applications that are developed with eCos." What exactly
> defines an eCos application? Does it include drivers?
> Does it include any code statically linked into eCos?
The effect is to neuter the so-called "viral" nature of the GPL. So it
does not include drivers or any other code linked to eCos. *Unless* that
is, those drivers are in any way derived from existing eCos code, as
clarified further below.
So if you write completely new code, whatever the nature of that code, it
is not affected by the eCos license just because it is linked with eCos.
> The overview then goes on to say "if anybody makes changes
> to code covered by the eCos license, or writes new files
> derived in any way from the eCos code," then the source
> code should be made public. What does it mean to derive
> code from eCos? Does deriving code include using eCos
> library functions and headers?
It means using the _contents_ of existing eCos source code files, either
in whole or in part. So if you copy an eCos source file and make some
changes to it, the file in its entirety (included your additions and
changes) is still covered by the eCos license. The same principle applies
to a file written by yourself, and you copy even just a few lines from an
eCos source file. That entire file is then covered by the eCos license,
even though only a very small part of it came from eCos.
Deriving code does not include just using library functions/headers, as
you have not copied them into your source code files. If you copied the
*contents* of those files into your source code files, that would be a
different matter.
That covers most of the situations you are likely to be concerned about.
There are some more esoteric edge cases where people try to step around
the GPL or eCos license requirements by using various tricks and assuming
that it is the literal meaning of "derived" that matters, but copyright
law is a little more flexible when it comes to a "derived work" and does
account for things like that. In other words, if you think you've got a
sneaky way to subvert the license, don't bother :-).
Of course a copyright lawyer will be able to give you a proper authorative
opinion of whether something constitutes a derived work, and I'm not one.
I am giving you my understanding of the licence (despite being a
co-author!), not legal advice.
> In the overview's Q&A section, it says "you would not need
> to make available... the code of a wholly separate
> application." What does "wholly separate" mean? Does it
> remain wholly separate if the application is statically
> linked into the eCos kernel? Does it remain separate if it
> calls eCos library functions?
It does remain separate. The application source files are distinct from
the eCos ones, and only interact with eCos using the various APIs, not by
copied code.
> Sorry if my questions are somewhat nit-picky. Since we
> make security products, our products must be certified by
> various government agencies that require that we clearly
> define our legal obligations.
That's absolutely sensible. Let me know if you have any more questions.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread